Landscape shooters - 24-105/ZE21 combo vs 24-70 II

Background:

The only type of photography I take seriously is of the landscape variety and having very good quality lenses for this purpose is important to me. However, I have two kids under the age of 1.5 years and not surprisingly, they are becoming my subjects more and more often. Photographing them and the things we do with them is just for fun, but my ideal kit should offer quality for landscapes and flexibility for my family.

Today, I'm accomplishing this with a ZE21, 24-105 and an 85 1.8 on my 5DII. The ZE21 is used only for landscapes and 99% of the time, I use the 24-105 and 430EX around the house because of it's flexibility. I'm not much of a speed freak so the 85 1.8 sees little use.

I plan to add a 100-400 and 7D one at a time over the course of the next 16 mos or so but these purchases are not dependent on my question - merely additional information.

The question:

Given my circumstances, I've considered swapping my ZE21 and 24-105 for the 24-70 II. From the reviews I've seen so far, I should have IQ rivaling that of the ZE21 across the entire 24-70 range (replacing my ZE21 and desire for a ZE50 MP). I would probably also sell the 85 1.8 to offset the cost of the 100-400/7D or put it toward a 17-40 for the rare times I need UWA.

My landscape kit could eventually become the 5DII/24-70II for normal landscapes and the 7D/100-400 for telephoto landscapes and the odd animal encounter while giving me AF, zoom, IQ and f2.8 for around the house without even having to change lenses.

The announcement of the 24-70 f4 IS further confounds this for me.

Whaddaya think?

In no way, 24-70 LII, as good as it is, can rival Zeiss 21 in corner and border. At 24 it has more distortion than the Zeiss. 3mm less in focal range is also substantial in the wide end.

I shoot landscapes with zooms so I can frame the shot easier. I couldn't use a 21mm prime for landscapes no matter how great it was. I often shoot landscapes from 35-280mm. Rarely at 24mm.

The 24-70 F4 IS makes no sense to me unless they discontinue the 24-105.

I think you should get the Canon 24-70 MKII.....and a 5D MKIII

MNUplander, In your shoes I would go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Expert Zeiss lens reviewer, Lloyd Chambers, has been reviewing the 24-70 II and his conclusions are stunning. Here's a little blurb:

"These images under a dull overcast sky nonetheless show a level of contrast and color saturation that is unusually good for any type of lens; this first order quality is a hallmark of the 24-70/2.8L II. Its optical quality stands head and shoulders above any previous Canon wide angle zoom, and not by a small margin."

"I generally prefer prime lenses over zoom lenses, but the bokeh and sharpness I see here have me persuaded that barring high speed needs, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II might be all the lens most Canon shooters need to cover both selective blur options at ƒ/2.8 as well as very high sharpness. "

That is very high praise. Chambers tends to be pretty negative in his reviews about a lot of Canon gear, so his lofty words regarding the 24-70 II are particularly noteworthy. Chambers generally uses landscape photography as his main test subject as well.

Zeiss produces colour reproduction no Canon can still rival, even my old manual Zeiss 35-70 beats any other manufacturer of AF lenses right now. The downside for the 21mm is the fixed focal length, the upside is the unique look of the images, which for me is more important than the flexibility. Whenever I shoot my landscapes I take time to scout the location, best possible spot and time of day...etc
It's also a matter of your preferred field of view and wide angle effect.
Now, this all only matters if you are serious about your photography, if you just want to have a fun hobby it won't matter what lens you get.

With regards to the 7D 100-400, I own that combination, also the 70-200 II, but just finished a CPS loan of the 5DIII, had both the 100-400 and the 70-200 II on it, The 70-200 II gave superior IQ. If you use the TC1.4 II or III on your 7D you will be happier with the 70-200 II. Now if you definately need the extra 200mm of the 100-400 plus the 1.6 crop factor, then it's the 100-400 for sure...

What I am saying is I plan to buy the 5DIII and keep my 7D, and only use if I have to absolutely get the distance the 7D can give, otherwise it will be on the 5DIII

If you're serious about landscapes, why would you go from a max of 21mm to a max of 24mm is my question. In fact, I'd say you need something on the ultra wide end and yes the 100-400 would be good as well because 70mm and even 105mm is not long enough on FF for certain shots.

David - I think I may have caught your post on this earlier and that, combined with the reports of IQ rivaling the TS-e 24 (and by proxy, the ZE21), are the things that got me going down this path in the first place.

Scapevision - Although important, I'm not certain that the differences in color rendition are something I consider deciding factors these days. I tweak colors to my liking on just about everything I shoot, regardless of the lens I used. But, your other point is something to consider - I have grown to really like the 21mm FOV over the last couple years. I am semi-serious as in I sell enough images to cover my gear purchases and a little extra (although the last couple months have been slow) but this is certainly not a profession for me.

Bianchi - I did consider this but I really do want to have the reach of the 7D and the 100-400.

Numenorean - Scapevision brought up a similar point and as I said to him, I do have a certain affinity for the 21mm FOV now - however I very rarely have any desire to go wider. So, I wonder if I could re-train my eye for 24-70 range until Canon decides to give us a suitable wide angle zoom...Ive owned multiple 17-40's over the years and I just can't quite fall in love with that lens as much as Id like to - my understanding is that the 16-35 isn't much different at smaller apertures either. Id happily hang on to my current 24-105 and drop 1.8k or more for a 14-24 f4 zoom with optics on par with the 2.8 II's.

I love my 16-35. I mainly have it because it's 2.8 and it does double duty for weddings. I wouldn't sell the Zeiss 21mm personally. 21mm is not a bad focal length, but I find sometimes that I want wider. But then I also sometimes want longer than 35mm, but less than 70mm (where my 70-200 f/2.8L II starts) and in those situations right now I'm grabbing the 24-105, but I will be getting a 24-70 f/2.8L II in the future (again, weddings/portraits). Even then I will likely keep the 24-105 because it's a nice vacation lens.

MNUplander wrote in post #15213842
Background:

The only type of photography I take seriously is of the landscape variety and having very good quality lenses for this purpose is important to me. However, I have two kids under the age of 1.5 years and not surprisingly, they are becoming my subjects more and more often. Photographing them and the things we do with them is just for fun, but my ideal kit should offer quality for landscapes and flexibility for my family.

Today, I'm accomplishing this with a ZE21, 24-105 and an 85 1.8 on my 5DII. The ZE21 is used only for landscapes and 99% of the time, I use the 24-105 and 430EX around the house because of it's flexibility. I'm not much of a speed freak so the 85 1.8 sees little use.

I plan to add a 100-400 and 7D one at a time over the course of the next 16 mos or so but these purchases are not dependent on my question - merely additional information.

The question:

Given my circumstances, I've considered swapping my ZE21 and 24-105 for the 24-70 II. From the reviews I've seen so far, I should have IQ rivaling that of the ZE21 across the entire 24-70 range (replacing my ZE21 and desire for a ZE50 MP). I would probably also sell the 85 1.8 to offset the cost of the 100-400/7D or put it toward a 17-40 for the rare times I need UWA.

My landscape kit could eventually become the 5DII/24-70II for normal landscapes and the 7D/100-400 for telephoto landscapes and the odd animal encounter while giving me AF, zoom, IQ and f2.8 for around the house without even having to change lenses.

The announcement of the 24-70 f4 IS further confounds this for me.

Whaddaya think?

I would keep your Zeiss.

However, the only thing I might recommend replacing with that lens, is the TS-E 24mm. To me, it is the ultimate landscape lens.

I think people (landscape shooters in particular) really, really underestimate the ability to tilt and bring the entire scene into focus. It still amazes me every time I shoot how well built that lens is and how much fun it is to shoot with.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15215177
I would keep your Zeiss.

However, the only thing I might recommend replacing with that lens, is the TS-E 24mm. To me, it is the ultimate landscape lens.

I think people (landscape shooters in particular) really, really underestimate the ability to tilt and bring the entire scene into focus. It still amazes me every time I shoot how well built that lens is and how much fun it is to shoot with.

I've heard mixed experiences from landscape shooters with the TS-e lenses with regard to tilt. Although the plane can be tilted toward the ground to achieve deeper focus at ground level, many users complain that taller elements (trees, mountains, etc) are tilted out of focus. I am led to believe the main benefit is the ability to control perspective and to be able to stitch panos without the nodal/parralax issues a normal lens has without special pano tripod heads. And of course, the fantastic IQ is also a great benefit.

But, I have no personal experience with any TS-e lens so my reservations are based on what I've read from other users - feel free to enlighten me.

MNUplander wrote in post #15217798
I've heard mixed experiences from landscape shooters with the TS-e lenses with regard to tilt. Although the plane can be tilted toward the ground to achieve deeper focus at ground level, many users complain that taller elements (trees, mountains, etc) are tilted out of focus. I am led to believe the main benefit is the ability to control perspective and to be able to stitch panos without the nodal/parralax issues a normal lens has without special pano tripod heads. And of course, the fantastic IQ is also a great benefit.

But, I have no personal experience with any TS-e lens so my reservations are based on what I've read from other users - feel free to enlighten me.

Inexperienced users will have an issue using a TS lens. As I have found this out, especially when I first got the lens. Most people think you can just tilt all the way down and get the whole field of view in focus...which isn't true. I'm still learning and getting better.

I'll put it this way, when I first upgraded my camera a while ago from a Canon Powershot to a Rebel, my pictures were worse at first, because I didn't know how to use the camera on manual. As I learned and my experience grew, my pictures got better. Same goes for this lens.

There will be instances where no tilt is needed and you just don't tilt the lens. There will be instances where lots of tilt is needed and you give the lens lots of tilt. There will also be instances where a little bit of tilt is needed....and....you get the idea. Every scene is different.

The ability to tilt when you need it and the lens being optically superior to many, just makes it all around awesome in my opinion.

Well, I'd love to try one out one day I guess but I have a pretty specific plan in mind for the time being and unfortunately, it doesnt involve a TS-e.

As for my decision, well thats still up in the air. One part of me loves working with ZE primes for the obvious reasons plus I enjoy the 21mm FOV, the other part of me is willing to sacrifice some of this for a killer zoom. If it were between something like a 14-24 zoom with 24-70II IQ and my ZE21, I think this would be an easier choice but I'm not necessarily comparing apples to apples with my current choice.

Thanks to everyone who provided input, figured I'd update the thread with my choice.

I've made my decision and I'm going to hang on to my ZE21 and 24-105, sell my 85 1.8 then kick in some extra cash I've made from image sales on my website toward a ZE50 MP. I've always regretted selling that lens and now that I have the 24-105 for when I actually need AF, I should be very happy with a ZE21/ZE50 MP combo.

I guess this probably fits into my long range plan of owning the ZE21, ZE35 f2, ZE50 MP and ZE100 MP a bit better anyway.

Thanks again everyone!

Your long range plan looks very good MNUplander. Those are all excellent sharp lenses. I finally get the 100MP (as well as the 21mm), and I'm really really excited about it. The 100MP is a great landscape lens!