24Lii vs 24-70 at f5.6 or higher for landscape

I had it the 24l ii and loved it for landscapes, but didn't like it to much for enviromental shoots so I went back to the 35L. Would there be a big difference between the 24-70 and 24Lii for landscape type shots, they would be at largest 5.6, but probably f8 or so. Thanks

You'll do fine with the zoom.

That is what I thought, but you know how lens envy goes. You try to find a way to justify the purchase of every lens.

I doubt you would see a difference, I would stick with 24-70.

There is only one camera position from which you can frame any shot exactly the way you want it using a prime lens. Any closer and you crop out part of the image and any farther away and you need to crop the image you have captured.

If you are in that serendipitous position every time, a prime is great. However, when shooting landscapes, zooming with your feet is often difficult or impossible.

That is where a zoom comes in handy. I seriously doubt if you will be able to tell the difference between the prime and the 24-70L, especially at f/5.6 or f/8.

skater911 wrote in post #12729717
I had it the 24l ii and loved it for landscapes, but didn't like it to much for enviromental shoots so I went back to the 35L. Would there be a big difference between the 24-70 and 24Lii for landscape type shots, they would be at largest 5.6, but probably f8 or so. Thanks

All I can offer is 24 II vs tamron 28-75 and canon 24-105L on FF, which is not quite your scenario. I found that the 24-105L did the worst and the 24 II the best for sure. Not all lenses perform the same at f/8-f/11!

24 1.4 II vs 24-105L on a 5D2 for landscape stuff, where you care about edge detail, pretty immense difference from what I saw. APS-H would reduce the difference a fair amount although I think you could still see some difference, but at least the truly ugly parts would be cut out.

Actually the 24 is sharper across the entire frame even at f/8-f/11 so it would be noticeable on any body. But away from the edges it depends how picky you are.

If it is strictly for landscapes what about the Zeiss 21 that is an awesome lens for that type of work.

IMO the 24-105L is better than the 24-70 for landscapes. It's arguably sharper, has IS for those times you can benefit from it, has a greater zoom range and weighs less (important when the landscapes you're shooting require a long trek into the middle of nowhere). Since you'll normally be shooting at f/8 or smaller, the smaller maximum aperture doesn't matter.

Shadowblade wrote in post #12743972
IMO the 24-105L is better than the 24-70 for landscapes. It's arguably sharper, has IS for those times you can benefit from it, has a greater zoom range and weighs less (important when the landscapes you're shooting require a long trek into the middle of nowhere). Since you'll normally be shooting at f/8 or smaller, the smaller maximum aperture doesn't matter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

The 24-70L is actually sharper at the corners and just as sharp at the center at f5.6 and in landscape shots corner to corner sharpness is very important.

Even when wide open the 24-70L may be softer at the center but it's sharper at the corners than the 24-105L wide open at f4.