Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

no......you got it all wrong....

Short answer: yes.
A minor limitation is that for very extended vistas, 24 mm may not be wide enough, but I feel that the perceived wisdom that landscapes require ultrawide angle lenses is a bit exaggerated. Ansel Adams of course favoured a short telephoto for his landscapes.

The pairing of the 24-105 with a 10-20 or 10-22 would cover that end of things nicely.

kin2son wrote in post #14377160
no......you got it all wrong....

Would you care to elaborate?

xarqi wrote in post #14377163
Would you care to elaborate?

Why would it be a good lens for landscape when the kit 18-55 and/or 55-250 can do the same (well better imho, but I'll be nice to you) job?

That wasn't OP's question....stop forcing an uwa down his throat.

No matter which way you look at it, 24-105 isn't a good choice for landscape on crop. End of story.

Not wide enough, but then again, some people are ok shooting landscapes with the 35L on a FF. If you are ok with being kind of narrow, you'll be rewarded with a very flexible FL. I used it on a 7D for a while (borrowed), and it was pretty nice to have nearly an all in one. At that time, I had a 10-20mm anyhow. The 15-85mm seems like a much better 1 lens solution minus the variable aperture.

kin2son wrote in post #14377181
Why would it be a good lens for landscape when the kit 18-55 and/or 55-250 can do the same (well better imho, but I'll be nice to you) job?

Even if it were granted that an 18-55 or 55-250 could do the same, or even better, that would not mean that the 24-105 was not a good landscape lens.

kin2son wrote in post #14377190
That wasn't OP's question....stop forcing an uwa down his throat.

If anything, I was doing the opposite. Read what I wrote again and do some thinking.

Again, why not?
You have offered nothing at all to support this assertion.
What deficiencies do landscapes taken with a 24-105 display?

Yes you can use it for landscape. But it is not that width. I always missed the mm under the 24 when using it on a crop body. I used most of the time the Canon 17-55 on a crop body. And for some width landscapes I use the Canon 10-22.

I personally did not like the 24-105 on the crop body (7D) but love it on my FF.

Maybe these are also options for you;
Canon 10-22
Canon 15-85
Canon 17-55

I also like to shoot landscapes with the 70-200II I think there is no perfect landscape lens. Depends all of your style of shooting.

I shoot the majority of my lansdscapes in the region of 28-90mm on a full frame, which is the equivelant of 17-55mm on your crop sensor T3i.

The 24-105 makes a great landscape lens on a full frame camera but I would personally find it not wide enough on a crop sensor camera (everyone has there own preferences of course).

I did shoot landscapes with the 24-105 on a crop camera but I had a 17-40 as well to cover the lenghts I needed and as they are not EF-S lenses they work on my full frame cameras as well.

If you are sticking with your crop camera sensor I would look at a couple of possible options if you don't want to use the 18-55 kit lens for some reason (I'm only going to mention Canon here but there are other alternatives on the 1st lens):
1. Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - would make a decent landscape lens and you also get a nice fast lens for shooting some indoor shots etc. I would say however I personally think it is over-priced.
2. Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - gives you wider and longer equivelant to 24-135mm on a crop sensor camera. Really is a fantastic focal length range for landscapes as sometimes I shoot landscapes at 135mm. You also get a great walk-about lens.

xarqi wrote in post #14377521
Even if it were granted that an 18-55 or 55-250 could do the same, or even better, that would not mean that the 24-105 was not a good landscape lens.

Sorry but I don't see how in your reply suggests that the 24-105 is actually good for landscape.

xarqi wrote in post #14377162
A minor limitation is that for very extended vistas, 24 mm may not be wide enough, but I feel that the perceived wisdom that landscapes require ultrawide angle lenses is a bit exaggerated. Ansel Adams of course favoured a short telephoto for his landscapes.

You said 24mm might not be wide enough, also the fact that landscape doesn't has to be always done with an UWA (which i agree), but still that doesn't make the 24-105 a good choice does it?

You gave absolutely NO reason as to why it's a good choice, or it's a good choice for beginner because a pro favoured a short telephoto for his landscapes?

xarqi wrote in post #14377521
What deficiencies do landscapes taken with a 24-105 display?

I didn't say there's any deficiencies, and that's not what i meant. It's just not the best tool for the job. Like I said, the 24-105 gives minimal (if any) advantage compared to the kit lens for landscape on crop.

So what advantages do landscapes taken with a 24-105 display on crop for you to say yes over other better (and cheaper) alternatives?

Would you care to elaborate?

I'm not really sure some of these posts are constructive and helping the OP at all.

Two of you are going on the naughty step in a minute and you know who you are.

Think it could work just fine, lots of range, I personally find 24mm wide for "most" things on crop (not all) and i used to use a 70-200 for landscapes, 24-105 cover alot of range.
15-85 would also be a good fit, alot wider and still in good range. Think either would be good choices.

WayneCornish wrote in post #14377869
I'm not really sure some of these posts are constructive and helping the OP at all.

I am trying to be constructive....24-105 is a good general lens (i have one myself), so yea sure it can do landscape. But is it a good choice? Well all i can say is it definitely isn't the best choice

Do you need constant f4 for landscape when most landscape shots needs to be stopped down to f8+? So you are really paying extra for constant aperture which offers you NO advantage for your job at hand.

Yes the range is nice, but so does 18-135? It gives you extra 6mm on the wide end and 30mm on the long end. So again, is 24-105 a good choice?

I think I'll just leave it for OP to decide...

Every one has his own style of photography. There is no perfect lens for landscape.

The 24-105 can be used for landscape. But if it fits the needs of TS ? only he or she can answer this question.
-what focal length do you take you landscape photos the most ?
-do you think you will mis the mm under the 24 ?
etc etc

Personally I would look at the Canon 17-55 or 15-85 first. These are great lenses. No the do not have a red ring. But they are damn good. I sold my 17-40 in the past to replace it for the 17-55

I use it on my 60D and love the versatility. Another lens to consider is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4, gives you more width but not quite the range.