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

kin2son wrote in post #14377839
Sorry but I don't see how in your reply suggests that the 24-105 is actually good for landscape.

That's because I didn't really want to get into a lot of justification for what I considered a fairly black and white case. If you can take good landscapes with a lens, it is a good landscape lens. Good landscape images can be taken with the 24-105, ergo it is a good landscape lens.

Yes, but there may be better ones depending on the particular style involved. It is for this reason that I suggested (note, suggested, not "forced down the throat") that the pairing with a 10-20 could provide even better flexibility.

The justification is above. Good landscapes can be taken: it is a good landscape lens.

If there are no deficiencies, how can it not be a good lens? The OP was not asking what was the best lens for the job was.

Possibly none, but the question was not seeking a comparison of different lens alternatives, but specifically about the 24-105. Was it good for landscapes? Yes. It's good for most things.

kin2son wrote in post #14377922
I am trying to be constructive....24-105 is a good general lens (i have one myself), so yea sure it can do landscape.

My point exactly.

I think the insistence on very wide angle lenses for landscape here and on other forums is at least partially mistaken. In the 1960s when Ansel Adams was using 4x5 Polaroid NPO film, his favor lens was a Schneider 121mm Super Angulon. The 35mm equivalent would be about 30mm.

dbyrd wrote in post #14380654
I think the insistence on very wide angle lenses for landscape here and on other forums is at least partially mistaken. In the 1960s when Ansel Adams was using 4x5 Polaroid NPO film, his favor lens was a Schneider 121mm Super Angulon. The 35mm equivalent would be about 30mm.

you know what they say about 35mm, two steps forward and you've got 50mm, two steps back, and you've got 24mm. 24mm on a crop is close enough to 35mm equivalent FOV on FF.

landscapes? two steps back. Portraits? two steps forward

Yes, 24-105 is a good lens for landscape on crop, I used it exclusively for my landscape work (granted, I'm not much of a landscaper), honestly, I think over 2 years I owned it, only once I wished it was a bit wider.

I hear and see all kind of answers when you go thru the various threads.. There are those out there using 70-200's for landscape, and there are those using the more normal ranges ( 17- 50 ) and those using UWA - speaking on crops.. Personally, if the OP already has a normal range lens- he should try it and see if it is wide enough and whether or not he wants wider or narrower. Like others have mentioned- there is no perfect answer.

Personally, if possible, I think I'd prefer making a panoramic over UWA, but you know, all lenses have their places, strengths and weaknesses.

OP, I'd suggest that you let others know what lenses you have, and if you have questions on how to best use your current gear, or what you find lacking on your current gear, etc.. Just guessing, I'd guess that perhaps appropriate settings and know-how might help you - unless you happen to be one of those guys with a single prime for their only lens.

Charlie wrote in post #14380770
you know what they say about 35mm, two steps forward and you've got 50mm, two steps back, and you've got 24mm. 24mm on a crop is close enough to 35mm equivalent FOV on FF.

landscapes? two steps back. Portraits? two steps forward

Those must be mighty big steps if you are going to increase the distance to that mountain range by 30%, and you must be willing to accept the total loss of control of perspective in the "step forward", scenario. So, yeah -

The 24-105 is a great lens but you should try it to determine if it is what you want, especially at 24 mm, or you must be more specific of the type of landscape you want to shoot if you want relevant advice...

FL choice for landscapes depends on your personal preference as well as the perspective you want to create. I use everything from 21mm to 200mm on a FF. Personally I would find the 24-105 to be a little long for my use, but then I shoot primarily in forests where you need UWA to get the perspective many times.

Out west, where distances are greater, it would be a great landscape choice, even on crop. In fact you might find yourself limited on the other end.

In short, it depends on your style and what/where you're shooting. Try to have an idea of what you're going to need for your partcular style then make the choice.

I just replaced my 24 - 105 with the Canon 18 - 135 for my 50D. It is wider and longer for landscape and walk around. I can't say I notice any differance in IQ. I also replaced my 70 - 200L f4 with the Tamron 70 - 300 VC and it is remarkable. Everyone is saying my shots are much sharper.
For years I have gone under the rule "Buy the best glass you can", so I did. You should buy the best glass you can for your camera. I recently heard that the L lenses are not made for the crop cameras, so you actually lose IQ. I am very happy.

I vote for the 24-105mm on FF not on crops. Too long for my taste, I like the 17-55mm paired with the 10-22mm if your a crop camera user. If you have crop and FF I say its just easier to use the FF for landscapes and the crop for sports/action (longer reach)

cypressimage wrote in post #14382760
I just replaced my 24 - 105 with the Canon 18 - 135 for my 50D. It is wider and longer for landscape and walk around. I can't say I notice any differance in IQ. I also replaced my 70 - 200L f4 with the Tamron 70 - 300 VC and it is remarkable. Everyone is saying my shots are much sharper.
For years I have gone under the rule "Buy the best glass you can", so I did. You should buy the best glass you can for your camera. I recently heard that the L lenses are not made for the crop cameras, so you actually lose IQ. I am very happy.

I had completely forgotten about the 18-135! A much cheaper option for a walkaround/landscape lens for someone who was considering the 24-105! Thanks.