Best Landscape lens??

Need some advice as to what my next lens should be. I'm looking for a landscape lens to use on a 5D3. I already have a 24-105L which is fine and sharp enough but I really want to step up a level now.

Any help would be appreciated.

Spuddyd wrote in post #16580211
Need some advice as to what my next lens should be. I'm looking for a landscape lens to use on a 5D3. I already have a 24-105L which is fine and sharp enough but I really want to step up a level now.

Any help would be appreciated.

by the time this thread has run its course you'll get recommended almost every lens made. I use all my lenses for landscape.

You could upgrade the Sigma for a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II.

Another option that might be handy would be one of the tilt-shift lenses, probably either the 17mm or the 24mm. The 24mm would be a good option as it could stand in for the 24-105L in the range where the 24-105 is weakest, at 24mm.

ed rader wrote in post #16580230
by the time this thread has run its course you'll get recommended almost every lens made. I use all my lenses for landscape.

No doubt you are right Ed, but one would hope people would at least be thinking in terms of lenses that have low distortion, sharpness across the frame and low vignette. That's where I like see the TS-E being good, as well as the 70-200 II.

The new 24-70 II is also a good landscape lens, but the OP does not look for a replacement to his 24-105L right now.

By landscape, do you mean focal lengths less than 25mm? Landscape shots can be made at any focal length.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16580246
By landscape, do you mean focal lengths less than 25mm? Landscape shots can be made at any focal length.

Yeah. You can shoot landscapes with a 70-200, a 35, a 50,... What FL are you looking for in particular?

I'd be looking at prime lenses, I shoot with a C.Zeiss 21mm on full-frame. Superb lens for landscape duties.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …95336112@N07/10​782602534/

Invest in filters. Youll see more change than just buying a new lens. For landscapes you stop down anyway so all lenses to a certain extent will do the same.

2 words - Lee Filters. Go do a search on the forums and there is tons of info on them. The things you can do with Lee Filters is amazing. The best part is its a system and you only need to buy an adapter for each lens which is not that expensive ($30-$60).

If you're really looking for a landscape lens (and not simply a wide angle lens), then a TS-E will be your best bet, focal length is up to you.

lol why hasnt anyone recomeneded the tried and true 17-40L? So far we have had responses for a large apperature telephoto zoom, 2 for filters and another for tilt shift???? Is the most obvious answer the least obvious, or are we all being deliberatley obtuse?

Spuddyd wrote in post #16580211
Need some advice as to what my next lens should be. I'm looking for a landscape lens to use on a 5D3. I already have a 24-105L which is fine and sharp enough but I really want to step up a level now.

Any help would be appreciated.

Heya,

21mm to 24mm on full frame would be a sweet spot for wide, but not quite "ultra" wide.

24L? 21 Zeis?

And get some neutral density filters. They are the difference between good landscape and exquisite.

Very best,

Somebloke wrote in post #16580439
lol why hasnt anyone recomeneded the tried and true 17-40L? So far we have had responses for a large apperature telephoto zoom, 2 for filters and another for tilt shift???? Is the most obvious answer the least obvious, or are we all being deliberatley obtuse?

Why is the 17-40 a better choice for landscapes than the TS-E lenses? Or the 70-200/2.8 IS II for that matter?

The three lenses I suggested are very sharp corner to corner, they have very low distortion, they have very little vignette, they deal with flare very well......all very important aspects for landscape photography.

The 17-40 is.....well it is pretty good with flare. It also has a lot of distortion and the corners are not all that great.

Are you recommending the 17-40 simply because it is ultra-wide and not all that expensive? Not all landscape photography is done with wide angle lenses (I've seen a lot of great shots with telephoto lenses) and the OP didn't specifically suggest he needed a low cost lens.

Somebloke wrote in post #16580439
lol why hasnt anyone recomeneded the tried and true 17-40L? So far we have had responses for a large apperature telephoto zoom, 2 for filters and another for tilt shift???? Is the most obvious answer the least obvious, or are we all being deliberatley obtuse?

Well the OP did say best, the 17-40L is more the best bang for the buck and very versatile.

I recent picked up a TS-E 24 f3.5 II, I don't think my 17-40 will get much use in the landscape department anymore and will be limit to UWA distortion shots and underwater.

Another from for TS-E and IMO the 24mm is best for landscapes. It can take much cheaper filters (screw on or 100mm square/rectangle), I find 24mm FOV more of the sweat spot for landscapes, if wide is needed you can pano and/or shift stitch, longer-add a TC, you don't need to stop down much to get DOF when you use the tilt, you can get creative with DOF with the tilt(tilt up or sides), and you can keep verticals vertical and use shift to frame the shot.

I also like using my 70-200 and even at times my 300.

17-40 f/4L