Can't decide lens for landscape

i have 17-40L on my 5Dmk2 and love it..the only lens I would love to have for landscape instead of this one is either 17 or 24TSE..

I use both the 17-40 and 24-105 for my landscape...the 17-40 is relatively new acquisition, so most of my shots were with the 24, the 17 mm gives a new perspective that I like much with a good foreground.

lomenak wrote in post #13780484
i have 17-40L on my 5Dmk2 and love it..the only lens I would love to have for landscape instead of this one is either 17 or 24TSE..

Completely agree. And I would also add the 24mm f/1.4L II

tonyniev wrote in post #13780502
I use both the 17-40 and 24-105 for my landscape...the 17-40 is relatively new acquisition, so most of my shots were with the 24, the 17 mm gives a new perspective that I like much with a good foreground.

I've had two copies of the 17-40L and it's a really nice performer on a full-frame camera. However, since I had 24-70 covered, I sold the second copy for the Sigma 12-24. That thing is uber-wide but suffers from quite a bit of optical issues on the wide end if it's not stopped down to f/8 or f/11.

Tony-S wrote in post #13779904
Go wide or go home:

Sigma 12-24.

I'm with you but I think it's a little too wide for landscapes, personally


Go for the 17-40. For the price, it's a great option for you considering your current lens lineup. Then dump the 50mm 1.8 for a 1.4 and you have a perfectly usable kit for quite literally anything, almost.

I recently traded my 17-40 .... I would have kept it but having acquired a TS-E 17, ZE 21 and ZE 35, it wasn't getting much use.

In truth, very few lenses are poor when stopped down to f/8 or f/11.. Getting sharp images means you just need to use a tripod, mlu, focus carefully (using magnified live view) and have a cable release.

consider the 17-40....

is the 35mm 1.4 a decent choice as well? i may be biased as i am selling my Bower Manual only 35mm 1.4 super sharp in right hands for about 400 total. im e baying it actually. i want a longer telephoto like the 300mm f/4 IS for birds and stuff

noisejammer wrote in post #13781716
mlu

sorry, whats that?

lomenak wrote in post #13781904
sorry, whats that?

i think it stands for mirror lock up? i googled it lol

samsonrodriguez wrote in post #13781920
i think it stands for mirror lock up? i googled it lol

duh, that makes sense. Thanks

17-40L is a great lens for outdoor landscape. Price is very reasonable considered the EF-S 10-22 now sold for $700. The color contrast and sharpness of the L is very good especially when you stop down. Well, for outdoor landscape, you will always stop down anyway.

I don't shoot as wide anymore so I don't own it now. 24mm is good enough to me for now. But if I will have to buy a landscape lens, I will vote for 17-40L without hesitation. I spent $500 a few years back to buy this lens. It is amazing that the lens is now listed for almost $800 before instant rebate.

There's also the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 to consider, which would serve as a dual-purpose lens. It's optically equivalent to the 17-40L from f/4 on.

I sold my 16-35 2.8 II for a 17-40 4L, as the faster stop wasn't important for urbex/landscape (and it was overpriced) instead I bought 2 lenses

In my HMO their is more than just the extra stop difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 II. I have had both, compared them side by side and the 16-35 has higher resolution, less chromatic fringing, and less vignetting. You get what you pay for.