-=5D CLASSIC admirers, assemble! (6)

Unforgiving Society...

5Dc + EF 24-70 f2.8L + ND 0.9 1/30 f2.8 ISO 200 28mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/r3VW​BK

ontonagondave wrote in post #17457047
Perry, that second shot is outstanding!

Thank you!

Canon 5D / Canon 16-35F4L IS @ 16mm / F8 / ISO 160 / 1/640'

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/raB3​W5

VaDimZH wrote in post #17456344
Thank you!

BTW,why do you recommend EF 17-40 F4L and not 16-35mm f/2.8 L II for example ?

Does it ( EF 17-40 F4L ) have a better sharpness stopped down ?

Heya,

I definitely recommend the 17-40 over the 16-35 I & II from a value point of view. If you wanted to get a better ultrawide, skip those two, and go straight to the 16-35 F4L IS. The 16-35 F2.8, both flavors, is not that sharp wide open, and while it's sharp stopped down, it's not much better, if at all, than the 17-40 stopped down. So why spend $1700 (or $1k used) compared to a great $500 lens that does the same thing. You also have to get bigger, more expensive filters if you go with the 16-35 II because it's an 82mm thread. I don't see it as a good step. If you want a better lens than the 17-40 and you're willing to pay for it, then the 16-35 F4L IS is the one. It's not even that expensive for what it is, and it's sharpness and qualities are actually significant.

Budget, 17-40. Great lens.
No budget, 16-35 F4L IS. Superb lens.

F2.8 is pointless for landscape. And when something is not really sharp at F2.8, then it really isn't worth it for that either.

But I wouldn't worry about any of them, they're all good enough, especially on a 5D.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17459447
Heya,

I definitely recommend the 17-40 over the 16-35 I & II from a value point of view. If you wanted to get a better ultrawide, skip those two, and go straight to the 16-35 F4L IS. The 16-35 F2.8, both flavors, is not that sharp wide open, and while it's sharp stopped down, it's not much better, if at all, than the 17-40 stopped down. So why spend $1700 (or $1k used) compared to a great $500 lens that does the same thing. You also have to get bigger, more expensive filters if you go with the 16-35 II because it's an 82mm thread. I don't see it as a good step. If you want a better lens than the 17-40 and you're willing to pay for it, then the 16-35 F4L IS is the one. It's not even that expensive for what it is, and it's sharpness and qualities are actually significant.

Budget, 17-40. Great lens.
No budget, 16-35 F4L IS. Superb lens.

F2.8 is pointless for landscape. And when something is not really sharp at F2.8, then it really isn't worth it for that either.

But I wouldn't worry about any of them, they're all good enough, especially on a 5D.

Very best,

OK,No budget,16-35 F4L IS.
What about , No budget 24-70 2.8 L II , very sharp at f/2.8 (just in case if I need f/2.8) and also sharp stopped down.
I think 24mm could well be wide enough for me.

VaDimZH wrote in post #17459719
OK,No budget,16-35 F4L IS.
What about , No budget 24-70 2.8 L II , very sharp at f/2.8 (just in case if I need f/2.8) and also sharp stopped down.
I think 24mm could well be wide enough for me.

Heya,

The 24-70 II is a good lens for landscape and generally anything, it's one of the best, if not the best, mid-range zooms.

But the question is whether 24mm is wide enough for your needs. For me, it would not be.

Also, size & weight. If you're ok with 24mm on the wide end and this is for landscape, I'd be looking for a 24-70 F4L IS instead to save over $1k for just one stop of aperture.

If you need F2.8 for low light, use that $1k to get something faster to supplement.

Again, speaking from a landscape point of view.

Very best,

Someone called Triple A...?

5Dc + EF 24-70 f2.8L + ND 0.9 1/125 f2.8 ISO 200 24mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/riyu​mA

MalVeauX wrote in post #17459447
Heya,

I definitely recommend the 17-40 over the 16-35 I & II from a value point of view. If you wanted to get a better ultrawide, skip those two, and go straight to the 16-35 F4L IS. The 16-35 F2.8, both flavors, is not that sharp wide open, and while it's sharp stopped down, it's not much better, if at all, than the 17-40 stopped down. So why spend $1700 (or $1k used) compared to a great $500 lens that does the same thing. You also have to get bigger, more expensive filters if you go with the 16-35 II because it's an 82mm thread. I don't see it as a good step. If you want a better lens than the 17-40 and you're willing to pay for it, then the 16-35 F4L IS is the one. It's not even that expensive for what it is, and it's sharpness and qualities are actually significant.

Budget, 17-40. Great lens.
No budget, 16-35 F4L IS. Superb lens.

F2.8 is pointless for landscape. And when something is not really sharp at F2.8, then it really isn't worth it for that either.

But I wouldn't worry about any of them, they're all good enough, especially on a 5D.

Very best,

I don't have direct experience with the lens yet, but the reviews for the Tamron 15-30 that just came out looks great. Supposed to be sharp, has VC, and F2.8. All for much cheaper than the Canon 16-35s

solepatch wrote in post #17460078
I don't have direct experience with the lens yet, but the reviews for the Tamron 15-30 that just came out looks great. Supposed to be sharp, has VC, and F2.8. All for much cheaper than the Canon 16-35s

Heya,

But it doesn't use standard filters. That's a big deal to me, as it's one of my three primary attributes for a landscaping lens. The 16-35 takes standard 77mm filters.

I care about:

1) Flare handling
2) Sharpness in corners stopped down (and distortion)
3) Ability to use standard filters

... for Landscape properties in a lens. Everything else (auto aperture, autofocus, IS/VC/OS, etc) is not important to me at all for this purpose.

That said, I like the idea of the 15-30 VC on a full frame, what a great range with VC and optically very good. It would be more of a travel lens for my purposes. For full time landscape, I want the ability to take care of standard filters more than I worry about the VC (I'm on a tripod 100% with landscape).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17459447
I definitely recommend the 17-40 over the 16-35 I & II from a value point of view. If you wanted to get a better ultrawide, skip those two, and go straight to the 16-35 F4L IS...

Budget, 17-40. Great lens.
No budget, 16-35 F4L IS. Superb lens.

F2.8 is pointless for landscape. And when something is not really sharp at F2.8, then it really isn't worth it for that either.

Agree with your assessment, but it's worth noting that the 17-40L has pretty strong barrel distortion at the wide end. I don't know about the other two lenses as I've never owned them, but the distortion on the 17-40L was strong enough to annoy me consistently.

VaDimZH, it depends on your style if 24mm is wide enough. I shoot a lot of landscapes but the majority of them are shot at 40mm. If I had to get one wide/ultra-wide lens specifically for landscapes though, it would be (by quite some margin) either the ZE 21mm f/2.8 Distagon or a 24mm Tilt-Shift.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17460090
Heya,

But it doesn't use standard filters. That's a big deal to me, as it's one of my three primary attributes for a landscaping lens. The 16-35 takes standard 77mm filters.

I care about:

1) Flare handling
2) Sharpness in corners stopped down (and distortion)
3) Ability to use standard filters

... for Landscape properties in a lens. Everything else (auto aperture, autofocus, IS/VC/OS, etc) is not important to me at all for this purpose.

That said, I like the idea of the 15-30 VC on a full frame, what a great range with VC and optically very good. It would be more of a travel lens for my purposes. For full time landscape, I want the ability to take care of standard filters more than I worry about the VC (I'm on a tripod 100% with landscape).

Very best,

That's a very good point. If you need to use standard circular filters the Tamron would not be for you.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17459895
Heya,

The 24-70 II is a good lens for landscape and generally anything, it's one of the best, if not the best, mid-range zooms.

But the question is whether 24mm is wide enough for your needs. For me, it would not be.

Also, size & weight. If you're ok with 24mm on the wide end and this is for landscape, I'd be looking for a 24-70 F4L IS instead to save over $1k for just one stop of aperture.

If you need F2.8 for low light, use that $1k to get something faster to supplement.

Again, speaking from a landscape point of view.

Very best,

Thank you !
Very informative!

I know I was asking for a "best" lens for landscape only,but I shoot a mix of landscape/portrait and etc.
I think 24-70 II is what I need,great sharp lens even 2.8,sharp stopped down,24 is wide enough for landscape (for me) and 70 great for portraits and etc.
I think I'm done here.
Having just one lens cover all my needs (for now)
Thank you all !!!

5D + 6 stops of ND filter + Samyan 85 F1.4 @ F1.4 (manual lens) + Speedlite in Softbox
Other lens used is 35 F2 IS (with the 6 stops of filters, @ F2, still autofocuses just fine in daylight) + Speedlite in Softbox
Water party is just bare 35 F2 IS

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rtZd​Pr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rtZd​t6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rcpT​fw

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rtSN​Lz

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rcqD​oU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/raEQ​nZ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rcpQ​pS

palad1n wrote in post #17455539
Sharpest landscape lens is currently 16-35 f/4 IS.

my latest shot from cosplay show in Bratislava.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/r915​Xh Cosplay show, Bratislava by Lukas Kr., on Flickr

Stunning image

Thank you!


another image : 5Dc + 70-200 f/2.8 noIS:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rruS​Kh