Wideangle landscape lens - full frame - 14mm, 17mm, 24mm, 28mm?

Which would you go with for a wide angle landscape prime lens?

Me Personally I use 24mm 1.4 II, 35mm 1.4 and a 70-200mm f4 IS for landscapes, but thats just my preference and the tools I prefere to get the job done, but I love the 24mm lens on full frame

In the near future I will be picking up either the 14mm 2.8 II or 135mm f2........... I got bit with the prime lens bug, the cure is soooooo expensive

I think anywhere from 20-24mm is perfect for landscape. Wider than that is sort of a specialty lens for my taste, and narrower than that it can be tricky to capture the full scene at times without switching. Fast 24mm's also have the added bonus of giving you a narrow DOF with a unique perspective for environmental portraiture.

I usually find myself shooting landscapes at 50mm though... 28mm at the widest, but that's partially because 28mm is my widest lens at the moment (but I've owned 24mm and wider lenses in the past)

Oops! I forgot to specify, the cheaper primes. Like--the ones I can buy used for about $300 each.

I'm honestly debating between a few primes, or just spending the $600 on a 24-105 f/4 and use that for everything from portraits to weddings, to walking around and just taking pictures of nothing, etc.

Any input on that?

The 24-105 is super versatile and makes a good landscape lens, especially for daytime shots. Stopped down to 5.6 or 8, it is really sharp. And you get the advantage of 105mm when you need that zoom. Best bang for the buck in zooms, I think.

Check out the recent postings in the 24-105 sample images thread. Lots of landscape stuff. And I've found it quite easy to stitch shots taken with the 24-105.

with the 24-105, there's distortion and vignetting at 24mm. Correctable, but its there.

gnome chompski wrote in post #17051831
with the 24-105, there's distortion and vignetting at 24mm. Correctable, but its there.

Distortion/vignetting don't concern me. I actually like vignetting. I don't see why people dislike it.

quadwing wrote in post #17051833
Distortion/vignetting don't concern me. I actually like vignetting. I don't see why people dislike it.

Because it's not something that works for all shots, like if one of the subjects is at the edge of the frame, or if you're shooting landscapes. At 24mm the 24-105L has a lot of distortion and the vignette stretches really far into the center of the frame, that's part of the reason I sold mine. The main reason though, is I just got bored using it, I like having the flexibility of aperture over the flexibility of zoom range.

I'd vote to pick up some vintage lenses and an EG-S screen if you're on a budget. I shoot entirely with MF lenses now, it started because of budget, but now I just genuinely enjoy it more

I actually wouldn't mind a different focusing screen, but unfortunately I kind of need autofocus because of clients, etc. I wouldn't mind autofocusing, but it'd be a little too big of a change. :/

quadwing wrote in post #17051760
Which would you go with for a wide angle landscape prime lens?

Heya,

It comes down to what you think you want to shoot most.

On full frame, I like 17-35mm. Depends on my composition.
On APS-C, I like 11~35mm. Depends on my composition.

Why get a prime?

Tamron 17-35.

Very best,

Canon's software or Photoshop will take care of vignetting with one click. And Photoshop does a great job with distortion, too. And really the distortion on the 24-105 is minimal for most landscape shots. You wouldn't want to shoot portraits with it at 24mm, but for landscape shots the distortion and vignetting is very easy to fix. I start all PP with the lens correction panel and in a few clicks I've cleared up any issues and I'm moving on to other PP tasks.

quadwing wrote in post #17051823
Oops! I forgot to specify, the cheaper primes. Like--the ones I can buy used for about $300 each.

I'm honestly debating between a few primes, or just spending the $600 on a 24-105 f/4 and use that for everything from portraits to weddings, to walking around and just taking pictures of nothing, etc.

Any input on that?

The Samyang/Rokinon 14 2.8 UMC fits the bill if AF is not a necessity. It can be had for around $300 new. Its "mustache" distortion can be easily fixed in post.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17051937
Heya,

It comes down to what you think you want to shoot most.

On full frame, I like 17-35mm. Depends on my composition.
On APS-C, I like 11~35mm. Depends on my composition.

Why get a prime?

Tamron 17-35.

Very best,

This is true, on APS-C you might want to go wider than the 24-105. So on your 5D MkIV (lucky devil) the 24-105 would work well, but your 7D MkII (what a playa), maybe the 17-55 or some such thing. :p

See, I'm speaking specifically for full frame. I'm just at an impasse. I'm going to be doing professional work as well, but also a lot of for fun photography. And I don't know what to get.

Would the 24-105 work well in a professional setting, I guess? That's where I'm really lost. I'm stuck between that and primes.

M_Six wrote in post #17051948
You wouldn't want to shoot portraits with it at 24mm

I disagree

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o4g9​44

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o4fU​1z