Looking for an affordable landscape lens for Full Frame

Just got myself an excellent condition 5D2 at an excellent price. I was most excited to use this camera for portrait work, but I realized I should probably take advantage of the field of view and sharpness by using it to do some landscape work as well.

I currently use a 17-552.8 IS on my 7D for landscapes, just wondering what an affordable landscape lens for a full frame camera would be.

Budget is $550 +/- 100 or so depending. Right now, it is looking like the 17-40 would do me justice, but I am open to other options / third party lenses / primes as well.


Input much appreciated.

the 24-105 or 24-70 would effectively replace your 17-55mm and exceed it.

17-40 is a great landscape lens.

Numenorean wrote in post #14198412
17-40 is a great landscape lens.

+1 the 17-40L is a great landscape lens on full frame and fits right in your budget. The 24-105L on FF will give you the most similar performance to your 17-55 IS though.

Some people also use the Sigma 12-24, the widest rectilinear lens you can get on FF I believe. It can be modified to take square filters but otherwise no filters for this guy.

ANY lens can be a great "landscape" lens. I use every lens in my bag for "landscape" photography. Trying to define ultra-wide focal lengths as the best choice for "landscape" photography is a huge mistake in my opinion.

17-40 or Canon 15 2.8 FE (see my other topic)

This might be from left field, but a TS-E lens will give you the best chance to capture excellent landscapes. TS-E lenses are manual focus and therefore, it might be worthwhile to find a used old gem like Canon's FD series TS 35 and have it converted for EOS mount. A friend of mine did this. The whole lot cost him about AUD900 and he's as happy as can be.

SkipD wrote in post #14198534
ANY lens can be a great "landscape" lens. I use every lens in my bag for "landscape" photography. Trying to define ultra-wide focal lengths as the best choice for "landscape" photography is a huge mistake in my opinion.

This is correct. I use my 70-200 at 200 for landscape shots sometimes and I've seen great work down with 400mm lenses.

+++ on the 17-40

SkipD wrote in post #14198534
ANY lens can be a great "landscape" lens. I use every lens in my bag for "landscape" photography. Trying to define ultra-wide focal lengths as the best choice for "landscape" photography is a huge mistake in my opinion.

Obviously , but wide angle lenses generally lend themselves more towards it, and this being my first full-frame camera, I want to take full advantage of that. I have used my 70-200 plenty of times for nice landscape, but 70-200 on my full frame isn't as vastly different from a crop as it is on the wide side (17mm crop vs 17mm FF).

actprivate wrote in post #14198585
This might be from left field, but a TS-E lens will give you the best chance to capture excellent landscapes. TS-E lenses are manual focus and therefore, it might be worthwhile to find a used old gem like Canon's FD series TS 35 and have it converted for EOS mount. A friend of mine did this. The whole lot cost him about AUD900 and he's as happy as can be.

I'm pretty sure TS-E lenses are outside of my budget.


Looking like the 17-40 is a winner right now.

Coppatop85 wrote in post #14199102
Looking like the 17-40 is a winner right now.

I'm not sure the 17-40 is going to be noticeably better on the 5D than the 17-55 on your 7D.

I've never owned either of them though.

The 17-40 is a great lens.

You could also look at some fully manual (like Samyang/Rokinon) and/or adapted lenses (OM, F, Leica R, C/Y, M42, etc). Lots of bang for the buck and (for me) the fully manual nature is beneficial when it comes to landscapes.

24-105 is not wide enough, and more expensive than the 17-40. I love my 24-105 but i would get the 17-40. Have you ever considered the Tokina 12-24? i use this lens however you can only use it from 16 or 17mm and up.

xenophobe wrote in post #14199126
I'm not sure the 17-40 is going to be noticeably better on the 5D than the 17-55 on your 7D.

Uh, there's a HUGE FoV difference.

16-35 is an option. Just a thought.

For landscapes, the 17-40 would be best.....but the 16-35 would be an option.