The one lens to rule them all

Hello all, sorry if this has been done recently. If you could only have one lens, and your primary purpose was landscapes, which would it be and why? For purposes of this discussion, the camera body is a 5DII.

The only lens I currently own is a 24-105 F4L. I'll be the first to admit that the zoom range is pretty tough to beat if you've only got one lens to work with. The downside is that the 70-200F4L IS that I used to own really spoiled me on sharpness and IQ. The 24-105 has been really lackluster in the sharpness category, at least for me (a non-professional). I also can't stand the lens "walking out" when I carry it, or worse yet, when I'm taking a shot of something below me. I'm really considering selling it and going back to the 70-200F4l IS as my one and only lens.

If I decided to go with a 2 lens system, the 70-200 and 17-40 would seem to make more sense than the 17-40 and 24-105. Then again, I'm also considering going to a prime, like the 50, or 135.

TS-E 17mm.

You can add a 1.4x for 24mm and 2x for 35mm and IQ is still great and you get shift.

Sounds like you use something longer for landscapes though.

Personally I wouldn't choose a 50 or 135 for landscapes.

With 2 lenses I take that + 70-200.

FYI the 50 1.4 is no sharper than the 24-105 at f8. So while primes at the wide end might get you much better IQ, around 50mm I don't think they will.

I do a lot of backpacking, and I don't think I have ever gone out with a single lens packed. But if weight is that big of an issue for you, then it's going to come down to your style of shooting and your intended output. Do you like wide, expansive shots more than tight, compressed ones? Would a loss in resolution from cropping a wide-angle shot be a problem for your intended uses (i.e. web versus prints)?

My own preference is to have one ultra-wide-angle zoom (the 16-35mm f/2.8L) and one telephoto zoom (the 70-400 f/4L IS). That leaves a pretty good gap in the middle, so sometimes I even bring along the 24-105mm f/4L in addition, but that's only if I don't have much else to carry. Otherwise, I just stitch shots together from the telephoto to get something a bit wider, if I need it (and sometimes I crop from wide shots, but I hate to lose that resolution).

Thanks for the replies so far. ejenner, I'm glad you brought up the 50mm comparison, if it's not noticeably better IQ than what I have now then it's getting knocked off the list.

Phrasikleia, I just checked out your link to your website and I'm humbled. THAT is the kind of landscape photos I want to take. The one of the Dolomites and the one of the winter lake scene at night are just phenomenal. So I'm guessing I lean more towards the wide angle preference.

I'd love to get a packing list from you for backpacking. Even for a short 3-day trip in summer weather I'm pushing 50 lbs if I take a DSLR, 1 lens, and tripod. My biggest reason for wanting a single lens, however, is not weight, its simplicity. I found that when I had two lenses (I owned the 70-200 and 24-105 briefly together), I spent more time changing out lenses and trying to decide which to use than I did actually composing and taking the shots.

I've never stitched a photo together (don't even own photoshop, just lightroom). If I could create a "wide angle" shot by stitching several from the 70-200 together, that lens would be my choice in a heartbeat, because I'm already sold on the image quality of it. Then again until my PP skills improve, I might be safer to go with a 17-40...

I have almost the setup you're discussing. I have the 5d Mark II, the 70-200 (mine is a 2.8 though), the 17-40, and the 50 1.8. I have to be honest, I use the 70-200 and the 50 all the time and rarely my 17-40. HOWEVER, and this is a HUGE "however", the only reason I don't use my 17-40 is because of where I live...it's ugly...not just ugly, but absolutely, indescribably, scare-away-small- children-and-make-landscape-photographers-CRY-ugly. My dream was (and still is, it's just been delayed) to take pictures like Phrasikleia takes (which are phenomenal by the way). However, until then, I'm just biding my time and becoming a better photographer by figuring out a way to work with what precious little I have to work with. Anyway, I wouldn't give up any of those three lenses for anything. I don't know if I helped any but good luck with your decision.

The 17-40 is small and really quite light. Definitely a consideration for me and it does come with me instead of the TS-E quite often because of that.

The 50 1.4 is also very small and light, so it might make my bag if I'm just missing something in the 50mm range, but it's not a FL I use much. So I usually either go with the extra weight and versatility of the 24-105 or go 17-40 and 70-200. For landscapes those two f4's are pretty darn light for the range covered.

I was hoping the 50 would be sharper than the 24-105 (it definitely is at f4-f5.6), but it turns out that ~50 is the strong point of the zoom and at f8 it's a wash (one is slightly sharper than the other at different distances from the center of the image).

But the 17-40 is more like the 24-105 in IQ. The TS-E is more like the 70-200.

I really don't think lenses matter for landscapes that much.

Any zoom at f/8 and be there?

I appreciate your input Amber, you are a talented photographer as well (I looked at your link too). I totally hear what you're saying about ugly terrain and the 70-200. Before I sold my 70-200 it was my walkabout lens. I used it for 99% of the shots that I took, and the clarity made my mediocre skills seem much better than they really were. Don't get me wrong, I know that like the old saying, in photography it's the Indian, not the arrow. But to be honest that is only true up to a point. when I upgraded from a Rebel and kit lens to the 5DII and 70-200, I was WAY happier with the vast majority of my photos.

Now back to the wide angle thing. Like you, I'm not surrounded by beautiful terrain, but sometime I go places, like backpacking in the high Sierras, or motorcycle riding in Zion NP, and in those times, when I want a wide angle, I really WANT a wide angle. After my last motorcycle ride I came back promising myself I would buy a wide angle...and here I am at lens choice time, debating going back to the telephoto...

EDITED TO ADD: I was typing and missed the last two posts. Knowing how much I loved the 70-200, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just go back to it, learn to stitch photos for those wider shots, and be done with it.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #16474940
Hello all, sorry if this has been done recently.

It's been done over and over and over again.

DC Fan wrote in post #16475603
It's been done over and over and over again.

Of course it has, you've been here since 2005. That's why I added "recently", but I appreciate your input. I find that every forum on every topic has those people who like to complain about repetition, but the truth is that every time a topic is raised different people chime in, new thoughts are shared, and valuable insight is gained.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #16475596
I appreciate your input Amber, you are a talented photographer as well (I looked at your link too). I totally hear what you're saying about ugly terrain and the 70-200. Before I sold my 70-200 it was my walkabout lens. I used it for 99% of the shots that I took, and the clarity made my mediocre skills seem much better than they really were. Don't get me wrong, I know that like the old saying, in photography it's the Indian, not the arrow. But to be honest that is only true up to a point. when I upgraded from a Rebel and kit lens to the 5DII and 70-200, I was WAY happier with the vast majority of my photos.

Now back to the wide angle thing. Like you, I'm not surrounded by beautiful terrain, but sometime I go places, like backpacking in the high Sierras, or motorcycle riding in Zion NP, and in those times, when I want a wide angle, I really WANT a wide angle. After my last motorcycle ride I came back promising myself I would buy a wide angle...and here I am at lens choice time, debating going back to the telephoto...

Thank you for the complement. I guess the question is, how often will you have the opportunity to go to Zion NP and other beautiful places? If the Sierras and Zion aren't that far and you can go there often, then I'd probably go with the 17-40 IF you think that's the type of photography you'll be doing mostly (meaning photography where you can use a wide-angle). I live in a border town in Texas 3 miles from Mexico so I'm VERY isolated. The only place I can go is Big Bend NP which is 3 1/2 hrs away so it's not a trip I can make often. I've been here for 17 months and 21 days (yeah, I'm totally counting)and so far I've only made it to BB once and it was for about 48 hrs-most of which were sleeping or driving. So, if I ONLY had my 17-40, I'd only get to take pictures once or twice a year, that's my point. I'd go with what lens you can use most frequently, if that's the 70-200, then I'd get that one right now and then maybe rent the 17-40 for your trips to the NP's if you won't be going there often. I hope I said all that in a way that makes sense.

Makes very good sense, and my numbers are not far off from yours. I think I needed help being talked back into my favorite lens, and it's working.

PS- I laughed at the 17 months comment. Thanks to you and your husband in serving our country. Military members/ spouses are held in very high esteem in my book.

Odd, my 24-105 is quite sharp and never creeps. Maybe you have a faulty one?

The new Sigma 24-105 F4 Art lens might be the one to beat the Canon 24-105 in sharpness. I haven't seen any reviews on it yet, though.

For me it was an easy answer=Canon 28-300mm.
It's sharp ENOUGH, long ENOUGH, wide ENOUGH for me; YMMV of course.
Trip/shot dependent of course; sometimes I'll tote the HEAVY Sigma 120-300 (twice the weight), and there is a Canon 300mm 2.8 on order; but if I can carry only one... Lensrental.com is your friend. I'd read the naysayers comments on the 28-300 so rented for a week to see. Here's an example:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …icineman4040/10​952636596/

Jedi5150 wrote in post #16475616
Makes very good sense, and my numbers are not far off from yours. I think I needed help being talked back into my favorite lens, and it's working.

PS- I laughed at the 17 months comment. Thanks to you and your husband in serving our country. Military members/ spouses are held in very high esteem in my book.

Glad I made sense and possibly helped.

M_Six wrote in post #16475618
Odd, my 24-105 is quite sharp and never creeps. Maybe you have a faulty one?

The new Sigma 24-105 F4 Art lens might be the one to beat the Canon 24-105 in sharpness. I haven't seen any reviews on it yet, though.

I've never had the 24-105 so I can't say from experience, but I do remember reading a thread a couple of years ago about the lens creep not being an uncommon problem with that lens. Again, I can't say personally but I've heard of it being an issue before.