16-35 or 24mm prime for landscape photography?

Doctor Mabuse wrote in post #19196240
I can't help wondering if you might not want to consider something longer than your 24mm rather than shorter?

'Landscape Photography' is a bit of a catch-all term and like most things in life sometimes the answer is "it depends" on exactly what one means by that.

I used to think landscape photography was all about getting the widest angles possible and photographing huge open spaces, but increasingly I'm finding my 'landscape' compositions are much improved with tighter framing, like 35-100mm.

I love my 35mm prime but oftentimes the longer end of the cheap and cheerful 18-135 gets the money shot; the former being obviously better for IQ for static compositions (e.g. buildings etc), whereas the latter is unbeatable for walkaround hiking when you suddenly see an unusual shaft of light coming through the trees in the mid-distance or whatever.

Just my $0.02!

I do have a 100mm that I use often. When my buddy and I go out, he has a zoom that is 24mm at the shortest. He can sometimes get a better composure that I can't with 35mm even if I zoomed with my feet.

I think I want wider, for, now....a 70-200 is on the list as well.

tifosi wrote in post #19196274
Couldn't help but notice that those shots were taken at ~24mm...hahaha.

Pics are great though and it's nice to see the IQ of the 16-35 f4.

I appreciate the convo, here. I know it will come down to my preference. I think I may purchase them both, pre-owned, and see which one I reach for the most. Sell the other.

That's a good idea, many are dumping EF lenses so you can probably get them pretty cheap. If you like wide you'll love them both. I couldn't really justify the 24L but it's become a favorite.

Doctor Mabuse wrote in post #19196240
I can't help wondering if you might not want to consider something longer than your 24mm rather than shorter?

'Landscape Photography' is a bit of a catch-all term and like most things in life sometimes the answer is "it depends" on exactly what one means by that.

I used to think landscape photography was all about getting the widest angles possible and photographing huge open spaces, but increasingly I'm finding my 'landscape' compositions are much improved with tighter framing, like 35-100mm.

I love my 35mm prime but oftentimes the longer end of the cheap and cheerful 18-135 gets the money shot; the former being obviously better for IQ for static compositions (e.g. buildings etc), whereas the latter is unbeatable for walkaround hiking when you suddenly see an unusual shaft of light coming through the trees in the mid-distance or whatever.

Just my $0.02!

I miss the 40mm end of the 17-40mm. That's the only aspect of the older lens that was superior to the newer one. I'd much prefer to sacrifice the 1mm wider end for another 5mm on the long end. Oh well. I did really like the 17-40mm, but contend that I too was using it on crop sensors, 1.6x APS-C and also very good on 1.3X APS-H 1D. When I started shooting full frame is when I upgraded to the 16-35mm.

I don't think the 24L adds anything material over the 16-35 f4 IS for landscapes and quite clearly has two main drawbacks - fixed focal length and no IS. If you have another use for the 24L in addition to landscape, you might be able to justify it (it's a fun lens and I loved using it for pictures of my kids when they were young), but that would be more subjective and you'd have to answer for yourself.

However, if the 24mm prime in question could be the 24 TSE II, that would be a much more difficult decision. Shift to get rid of leaning trees, stitch horizontal shifts in portrait orientation for a higher resolution 14.5mm FOV, tilt for focus plane maximization, very sharp edge-to-edge un-shifted due to the larger image circle.

Kinda makes me want to go check out some used 24 TSE II's just talking about it...miss that lens.

MNUplander wrote in post #19196483
I don't think the 24L adds anything material over the 16-35 f4 IS for landscapes and quite clearly has two main drawbacks - fixed focal length and no IS. If you have another use for the 24L in addition to landscape, you might be able to justify it (it's a fun lens and I loved using it for pictures of my kids when they were young), but that would be more subjective and you'd have to answer for yourself.

However, if the 24mm prime in question could be the 24 TSE II, that would be a much more difficult decision. Shift to get rid of leaning trees, stitch horizontal shifts in portrait orientation for a higher resolution 14.5mm FOV, tilt for focus plane maximization, very sharp edge-to-edge un-shifted due to the larger image circle.

Kinda makes me want to go check out some used 24 TSE II's just talking about it...miss that lens.

I am so lucky to have a 24L II, TS-E 24L II, and TS-E 17L in my bag, plus RF 24-105L and RF 24-240, so I am really spoilt for choices, and I just love it!

If I had to choose between a 16-35 F/4L IS and a TS-E 24L II, for me the choice would be easy - the prime would win. The same is true for the TS-E 17L. And choosing between TS-E 24L II and TS-E 17L is just impossible .

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #19196524

I am so lucky to have a 24L II, TS-E 24L II, and TS-E 17L in my bag, plus RF 24-105L and RF 24-240, so I am really spoilt for choices, and I just love it!

If I had to choose between a 16-35 F/4L IS and a TS-E 24L II, for me the choice would be easy - the prime would win. The same is true for the TS-E 17L. And choosing between TS-E 24L II and TS-E 17L is just impossible .

Kind regards, Wim

How do you like the 24-240mm vs the 24-105mm L?

I'm thinking about selling my 24-105mm and just having a 24-240mm for a everyday lens, and having a couple of primes for low light.

jeffreynmandy wrote in post #19196573
How do you like the 24-240mm vs the 24-105mm L?

I'm thinking about selling my 24-105mm and just having a 24-240mm for a everyday lens, and having a couple of primes for low light.

The RF 24-240 is a great all-round single holiday-type lens, or a lens you may want to carry when traveling light but need the reach, provided you either use automatic lens correction (jpegs) or know how to use Lightroom well enough.
The Rf 24-105L is a better lens, and it has constant F/4, and it is very good.
So, it is a matter of convenience and having more reach vs having better IQ and less reach.
That is exactly why I have both, so I can make a choice.
The 24-240 I effectively use for snaps, the 24-105 I'll use for reportage, that is what it amounts to for me.

I do have a couple of low light primes, RF and EF , and a bunch of specialized primes, so I feel rather lucky from that PoV.

I actually got the 24-240 because I knew it was good enough, and I could get it on a trade with an older MF camera, plus a voucher. Stil waiting for something to come along for the voucherthat is interestign enough, but which I can only use at a single store, dealign mostly in used equipment, Teh 24-240 was new, so I was luckky there.

Anyway, long story, I guess, but the gist of it is RF 24-105L as a general purpose, good quality standard zoom, the RF 24-240 as a great holiday lens or lens for snaps with a longer range, especially good with better light and using automatic lens correction.

BTW, if you are talking about an EF 24-105L (I have owned both versions), the choice doesn't matter. Either of the RF lenses will be better, IMO, but that may be a matter of taste..

HTH, kind regards, Wim

For me, the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Versatility and Image Stabilization. Climbing and Hand Holding lends its way towards IS even if at a faster shutter speed and focusing on a smaller object as the image is also stabilized in the Viewfinder allowing more accurate focus. Also use for bracketing images in old Cathedrals where tripods are prohibited. The 16-35 f/4 L IS, now over five years old for me simply performs and performs.
I also use the 24 TS-E mainly for architectural Shift. This type of work, I use a tripod and a “slower approach”.

The 24mm 2.8 IS is crazy sharp. It’s actually a bit sharper than my 24-70 mark II edge to edge, but especially in the corners. Image stabilization could be nice if you are walking and want a hand held shot. I just sold mine today for $260 on another forum in like new condition. You would be happy with this lens.

You were right. I picked up the 16-35/f4 about a month ago or so. I am really enjoying this lens. No need at all to swap out the 16-35 for the 35 prime. I happily kept the zoom mounted. There is a good chance I’ll sell the 35/1.4ii actually, haha! Going through a bit of transition with my gear and really figuring out what I need for what I really enjoy shooting.