What is your best landscape lens (for FF)?

Another vote for a 5D2 and a 17-40L.

Yeah I was thinking 24tseII and 17-40L.

24mm (especially being able to shift) will be wide enough for most things, 17-40L is great small and light.

This is all because my 10-20 really isnt up to it too!

HCD 28mm/f4 on H4D-60

16-35L

ljjf wrote in post #13404172
Does anyone have any experience with the TS-E 24 3.5L II? I'm curious if it's worth the the $500 premium over the 16-35, or $1000 to the 17-40.

I just wrote a post on landscape application of the TSE 24 II as well as the Zeiss 21, with several examples of each
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=39871480
Mike K

ljjf wrote in post #13404172
Does anyone have any experience with the TS-E 24 3.5L II? I'm curious if it's worth the the $500 premium over the 16-35, or $1000 to the 17-40.

I just wrote a post on landscape application of the TSE 24 II as well as the Zeiss 21, with several examples of each
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=39871480

I used to own the 17-40 for many years while shooting a 1DmkII. When I went to full frame the softness at the edges of the frame were too much for me. I am happy with both the Zeiss 21 and TSE 24 II.
Mike K

I love my 24L II.

ljjf wrote in post #13404172
Does anyone have any experience with the TS-E 24 3.5L II? I'm curious if it's worth the the $500 premium over the 16-35, or $1000 to the 17-40.

Yes, I have one. It's easily my best LS lens, but not the one I use the most.

Contradiction? No, with a 5DII it's often too wide (I found this out recently during two weeks on the Oregon coast shooting sea stacks where I more often used my 24-105.).

To solve this problem, I will now use this lens with my 30D, effectively becoming a 38 mm lens. This would solve some problems, but a zoom is often more useful if one wants to "save" all the pixels available on a FF body.

The real beauty of the TSE is the DOF that can be achieved on many shots at wide apertures using tilt. The shift feature is almost an essential for getting images of buildings that don't look distorted.

Do I think it's worth the extra money? For me in my situation; semi-retired and being able to afford it, yes - for others maybe not. Value or worth isn't an absolute measure, it's relative to one's situation.

Would I buy it again? Yes. What's interesting about this lens is that it's maximum centre resolution (according to Photozone) is at f/3.5 to f/5.6; I often use it wide open and get infinity and the tripod feet in focus using tilt (not really, but at 24 mm on a tripod the foreground is VERY close).

Would I buy a 16-25 or 17-40? No - because with the TSE 24, I can stitch two or four images together to get that kind of width, and I will have two or four times the MP than with an image shot with a single lens.

And if I need longer, the 24-105 steps up to the plate. The only drawback I've found to the 24-105 is that the excellent Canon extenders will not fit.

Glenn

Most of the time I use my 17-40L, but the 70-200L or 85 1.8 are also very nice.

Glenn NK wrote in post #13416281
Yes, I have one. It's easily my best LS lens, but not the one I use the most.

Glenn

Thanks for the summary Glenn, did you find the learning curve steep with a TS lens or was it simply a case of trial/error before you understood the effect of varying derees of tilt on both shallow and large depth of field. This will be my first wide angle lens, although 24mm isn't that wide, I just want to ensure I get it right the first time without having to 'pay twice'.

RobDickinson wrote in post #13408936
How do you deal with the filter 'issue'?

This refers to using filters on the TS-E 17...

I followed MBN's instructions (look for them on the TS-E 17 examples thread) and constructed an adapter to suit my Lee filter holder. In essence, you buy a spare lens cap, dismantle it, discard the part that covers the lens, reassemble two of the bits, trim these with a dremel, and glue on a standard (not UWA) 82mm adapter ring.

You can then install a GND or ND filter without an issue. Mike warned me of flaring issues, but I haven't experienced them yet.

The arrangement allows about 6 mm of shift before I get vignetting.

I shoot landscapes with all my lenses... Portrait lenses might be sort of specific, but landscapes you can yake with anything.

jdizzle wrote in post #13406268
My faves are the 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E MK II, Zeiss 21, and Nikon 14-24. Anyways, you won't see any big differences between the 17-40 and 16-35 II. The only advantage the 16-35 II has is better flare control and slightly sharper corners. If you're on a budget the 17-40 is a good lens for the money.

And its slightly wider, a full stop faster, has a brighter viewfinder because its 2.8, and shoots magnificent 14 point sunstars. Add in the corner sharpness and flare control and in no area is the 17-40 better than the 16-35. You just have to decide if its worth it for you to pay the extra money. I do mostly landscapes so it was for me.

I am really liking the Schneider 58XL on a Fotoman 6x12 MF rangefinder. That lens cuts like a diamond. It captures amazing detail and shot mostly at f/32 producing a DOF of 3'-infinity.

I favor the 24mm TS-E II on a FF body. I got rid of my 24mm 1.4L II for this lens. This lens is way sharper than the 24mm 1.4L II.

The tilt function allows you to lay down the focal plane horizontal to get everything from foreground to background sharp even though the lens is wide open. The shift function allow you to create wide panoramic images with a horizontal FOV to be equivalent to that of a 17mm. The shift function will also allow you to change the perspective to straighten up tree and building from looking like they are falling backwards. There are other creative uses of a TS-E lens.

I was contemplating between a 17mm TS-E or the 24mm TS-E II but favored the 24mm since I could use filters.

BTW, for the best landscape, TS function is a function that is nice to have if the money permits. It replicates the movements of a large format camera. If the Tilt/Shift function was good enough for Ansel Adams then it is good enough for me.

Purplecow wrote in post #13418191
BTW, for the best landscape, TS function is a function that is nice to have if the money permits. It replicates the movements of a large format camera. If the Tilt/Shift function was good enough for Ansel Adams then it is good enough for me.

Not so sure how much Ansel used tilt or shift. I do know that he shot 8x10 pretty much straight on and at apertures that guarenteed DOF to cover a landscape without TS capability. Also a view camera can traditionally tilt, shift, and rotate the lens plane and tilt and rotate the film plane. The 35mm equivalent provides tilt and shift at the lens plane. The only downside to this entire rig is that images are captured to the latest greatest DSLR and in some schools the current technology just isn't enough.