Can't decide lens for landscape

Hello POTN members,

I have been debating for a while as to which lens to get to accomadte and fulfill my landscape photography. It's between 16-35 MKII which is quite pricey, 17-40L which is what I am leaning towards, or maybe third party lens. I don't need to have the lens immediately but I would love to hear from users of those particular lenses why they selected their choice of lens for landscape shooting. My following gear consist of the following:

Canon 5d MKII
Canon 50 1.8 MKII
Canon 70-200 2.8 MKII
Canon 580 EXII

I would love to buy a wider lens that will help me in obviously shooting lanscapes as well as people. I have couple of weddings in summer that I will be shooting for free to build my portfolio as well as some sporting events and will be doing a lot of portrait work in my home studio and location shoots. With my current lenses, I think I should fair well with wedding and couple of baseball games and soccer games, but I know adding a wider lens will compliment my other lenses very nicely.

So, which would be my best option?

Thank you,

Karim.

tamron 17-50 does not work with 5d2. take a look at tokina 16-28mm

If it will be primarily a landscape lens, there are loads of lenses (mostly primes) better than the 17-40 for landscapes for use on Canon cameras via adapter.

I really like the olympus 21/2 and 21/3.5 and 24/2.8.

minh2pac wrote in post #13778667
tamron 17-50 does not work with 5d2. take a look at tokina 16-28mm

Thanks for clarification, I was speaking with someone on FM about that lens for my xsi body as well and they recommended 17-50 over 17-55 but I want wide lens for FF camera.

17-40 L is a great wide angle zoom landscape lens on a full frame body. 24-70 L and 24-105 L are others, although a lot more expensive than the 17-40.

I love the 17-40L on my 5D2. It's just a great lens in general. I don't really need the extra stop from the 16-35 and also didn't want to spend the extra $1000. That's why I bought the 17-40L and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I had the 24-70 and loved it but I want wider view. I am very keen on the 17-40L currently and I am not worried about getting f2.8 or less as most of the time I will be using these outdoors where my f-stop will be arount f8-f11 maybe higher to get all the details in the shot. However, I am wondering if you guys also use 17-40L for perhahps weddings or any other events besides landscapes?

plasticmotif wrote in post #13778690
If it will be primarily a landscape lens, there are loads of lenses (mostly primes) better than the 17-40 for landscapes for use on Canon cameras via adapter.

I really like the olympus 21/2 and 21/3.5 and 24/2.8.

I was surprised how little difference there was between my ZE21 and my 17-40 at 21mm and f8. The extreme corners were definitely better with the ZE, but elsewhere there was very little difference when viewed at 100%. In fact, my camera budget is a bit limited these days and I had plenty of holes in my lineup so I sold my ZE21 for a 17-40 and used the difference to fill the gaps.

Now, Im not saying the ZE21 isnt the better lens - Ill pick one up again when things settle down some day in the next couple years, but at f8-f11 and not right at 17mm the 17-40 is a very capable lens and fits well within many budgets while offering a great combination of quality and flexibility.

When I shot wide on the 7D, I used the 10-22. When I got the 5DII I got a 17-40 (don't need f2.8 shooting landscapes). After using that combo, I sold the 10-22.

I use 17-40 for the wide shots, 24-105 for medium walkaround stuff. If I need serious reach, there is the 100-400; but that is usually for wildlife, not landscapes.

Since the MFD on the 17-40L is really close I like to use it at 40mm for product type shots sometimes when I'm just bored at my desk. But I have also used it on a 1Dmk2 for my friend's kid's birthday party. It worked very well for the short distance indoor shooting. Got all the kids in frame.

17-40 is a good quality lens for landscaping. its light and the best thing is it is not pricey. as others say, you dont need the extra stop because you will be using f8+ for most landscape shots. I've been using it 90% of the time even as a walk around.

I do landscapes, food, and some portrait. i also use the lens on food when I dont need a wider aperture. 40mm at f4 will do just fine for dof.

but!

if i could afford the 16-35 II then i would get it
I plan to get the 16-35II to replace the current 17-40 for it's 2.8.

17-40L
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=134756

16-35II
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=411156

as for 3rd party, i hear alot of good things on the Tokina 11-16 2.8
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=502308

Go wide or go home:

Sigma 12-24.

i tried the 17-40 and 16-35 side by side about a month ago, i don't need f2.8 in a landscape lens, and i didn't see $1k of IQ difference in these two off my tripod.

On 5d it is regular portrait lens at 35mm. Fun lens for indoor at 17 mm to use with flash.
And convinient landscape lens. Just watch for distortions at the wide end.

I do have a budget where I can get the 16-35 mkII f2.8 which I can use for wedding when in low light, however, I think the price does not justify that extra stop. Also, my plan is to use this for landscape and outdoor portraits. I will be going with the 17-40L which was my initial choice and I just want to Thank everyone here for their suggestions.

Time to see if I can find a good used copy.

Karim.