Full Frame Landscape Lens

I'm considering going full-frame and am wondering what lens I would want to look at that would be equivalent in range and IQ to the EF-S 17-55 that I currently use 95% of the time?

Nic

24-70F2.8
24-70F4
24-105F4

any will exceed the IQ

Yep, that all three listed lesnses are similar to what 17-55 gives.
But landscape lenses typically wider:
16-35/2.8
17-40/4
new 16-35/4

Depends on what you want: general lenses or landscape.

Most experienced photographers that I know use just about any focal length one could think of for "landscape" photography. That includes very long focal lengths, medium focal lengths, short focal lengths, and anything in between.

The apparent trend toward ultra-wide-angle lenses being synonymous with "landscape photography" is something that's relatively new and I, for one, do not understand why anyone would consider that to be a rule.

SkipD wrote in post #16997748
Most experienced photographers that I know use just about any focal length one could think of for "landscape" photography. That includes very long focal lengths, medium focal lengths, short focal lengths, and anything in between.

The apparent trend toward ultra-wide-angle lenses being synonymous with "landscape photography" is something that's relatively new and I, for one, do not understand why anyone would consider that to be a rule.

+1

I dont particularly limit myself to a small focal range for "landscapes", however I think the reasoning for ultrawide is because ultrawides dont really excel at anything other than landscapes..... hence the recommendations.

to me, landscape lens would cover wide, normal, and tele. 24-105 is good for that, and If I were to shoot only 1 lens for landscapes, that would probably be it.

Thanks for the help. Let me make sure I understand:

A 24-70 on my crop body would be equivalent to what I now know as 17-64?

nicshow wrote in post #16998021
Thanks for the help. Let me make sure I understand:

A 24-70 on my crop body would be equivalent to what I now know as 17-64?

No, it would be about 38-112

slookx24 wrote in post #16998035
No, it would be about 38-112

17 x 1.6 = 27.2 Where does 38 come from?

I should have asked it the other way - the 24-70 on a full frame body would be equivalent to what I now know on a crop sensor as 15-44?

nicshow wrote in post #16998099
I should have asked it the other way - the 24-70 on a full frame body would be equivalent to what I now know on a crop sensor as 15-44?

Yes.

I have the 24-70 2.8 II, 24-70 f4, and 24-105 on full frame. I have a very good copy of all 3. I would say all 3 are great. It partly depends on what other lenses you are using. I would say the absolute best bang for the buck setup would be the new 16-35 f4, the canon 24-105, and tamron 70-300. Tamrons primary weakness is AF speed, which does not matter in landscape. it is reasonable size, well built, very cheap, non rotating front element, etc.
I picked the 24-105 b/c it has the better range. it is the weakest of my 24-xx lenses at 24, but you could use the 16-35 in that range. If you are going with just a single lens, I would go with the 24-105 for the range, or 24-70f4, if you are looking for best image quality at a good price.

If I go out for landscape shots, I tend to bring 4 lenses: The 17-40mm, 24-105mm and Tamron 70-300mm. If you find yourself in good light, it's a shame and even a bit of a waste of time and opportunity to just focus on the widest of wide scenes. The 24-105 range is a good middle ground that you can throw a lit of scenes at, but at 24mm you'll need some distortion correction, so your final shot after post processing will be around 25 or 26mm.
The 17-40mm is not perfect but it did give me some great shots and it's very resistant to flares. I love it at 17mm especially if you have a scene with a lot of depth and a good foreground.

The Tamron 70-300 is just great value for picking out some details and it's not too heavy. Unfortunately it doesn't share the 77mm filter size so an extra CPL could be a good idea, assuming you'll want to use a CPL and a hood (otherwise just a step-up adapter).

The 4th lens I bring is usually a 100mm macro, just in case I want to get closer than the 24-105 allows me.
Ironically, my favorite landscape shot (https://www.flickr.com​/photos/mdstoop/771967​3988/) was taken with the 85mm 1.8, but to be honest, that was just what was on my camera. The 24-105, 100mm macro or 70-300 could have easily made that shot as well.

Edit:
By the way, looking at your photostream, there's a strong case to be made for a 17mm or 24mm tilt shift. It would depend on your way of shooting, if that's controlled and deliberate, a tilt shift could be a very good option to go together with an all purpose zoom.

the 20 mm f/2.8 is nice and light and cheap

Having just picked up the new 16-35 f/4 L, I would recommend it. Very sharp and its a 77mm filter size so you can use filters.

SkipD wrote in post #16997748
Most experienced photographers that I know use just about any focal length one could think of for "landscape" photography. That includes very long focal lengths, medium focal lengths, short focal lengths, and anything in between.

The apparent trend toward ultra-wide-angle lenses being synonymous with "landscape photography" is something that's relatively new and I, for one, do not understand why anyone would consider that to be a rule.

Sure, just like portraits can and are done with many different focal lengths from 24mm to 200mm yet people gravitate to the 50mm, 85mm or 135mm lenses when talking about portraits. If you actually look at a landscape forum, the majority of shots are taken with wide angle lens.