Favorite lens for landscape?

What lens do you most use for landscapes? This is for the Canon 5D.
Thanks,
David

When i was in Scotland shooting for landscapes using my 5D, my 2 main lenses were:

16-35 2.8L
24-105L

alternatives:

17-40L
16-35 f4L
Samyang 14 [headache with filters]

C/Y Zeiss 35-135mm. Zeiss quality in a zoom lens on a Canon body. What else can you ask for in a landscape lens

I use my 17-40L the most.

When I'm in the western part of the U.S. I prefer the 70-200 f2.8 over wide angle , when I'm on the east coast I prefer the 17-40 f4.0 although I do uses other lenses when they let me get the photo that I had in mind.

On a 5D you can't go wrong with the 17-40L if you can afford it. I never thought the 16-35 was worth the cost.

Gentleman thank you for the replys. I've been leaning toward the 17-40. I appreciate your time.
David

17-40 for sure

Very timely thread. I'm trying to decide among a Sigma 12-24, the Canon 16-35 f/4, or the Sigma 35 ART. I realize the 35 ART isn't really in the same realm as the other two, but it is a prime that I had my eye on up until I booked a trip to Puerto Rico for April and will need something wide(r) for landscape. With a 24-70 in the bag, the Sigma 12-24 would seem the likely choice to hit the lower end, but I wonder if that 16-35 would be better (I've ruled out the 17-40 - I'd rather spend the little extra on the new 16-35 f/4).

mike1812 wrote in post #17352154
Very timely thread. I'm trying to decide among a Sigma 12-24, the Canon 16-35 f/4, or the Sigma 35 ART. I realize the 35 ART isn't really in the same realm as the other two, but it is a prime that I had my eye on up until I booked a trip to Puerto Rico for April and will need something wide(r) for landscape. With a 24-70 in the bag, the Sigma 12-24 would seem the likely choice to hit the lower end, but I wonder if that 16-35 would be better (I've ruled out the 17-40 - I'd rather spend the little extra on the new 16-35 f/4).

Don't make the mistake of going too wide. Some people seem to think that landscape is automatically WA but, often a normal to short tele is a better choice. For instance, large mountains can be rendered as insignificant hills by too wide a lens. Additionally a long lens can compress and flatten a view in very interesting ways.

To the OP's question, if you can get them, your best bet is to pair the 17-40 and the 24-105. If I could only have one, I would choose the 24-105. 24mm may occasionally not be wide enough, but I would rather be to long than not long enough. But that's only me. Others, for very good reasons, will prefer the 17-40. You do need to know what your own interests and proclivities are.

It depends!

But my #1 landscape lens is TS-E 24mm II, #2 70-200mm 2.8 II and #3 Zeiss Makro Planar f/2.

My favorite was the 17-40L, but after getting the 24mm f/1.4L II, I did not touch the 17-40L for over a year. I ended up selling it last summer.

I love my 17-40L but find I often shoot at 17mm. If I could afford it I would get the 16-35 F4 or the 2.8

stronics wrote in post #17348217
What lens do you most use for landscapes? This is for the Canon 5D.
Thanks,
David

It really depends on what the landscape is. Here in the Rockies, I probably shoot in the 100-200mm range the most because the mountains are typically best shot from a distance. Waterfalls and valleys are often with wide-angle. So, you just have to be prepared for anything from ultrawide to long telephoto.

@Dave G

What about adding the Rok 14mm for wider? Money no object, the 17mm TS-E is nice - stitch one 17mm shot for the ground and one for the sky. Really wide, not too much distortion, pretty sharp in the corners.

No way I can answer the OP though. I love shooting landscapes and I love UWA, but I never go out without a full range covered. And even out of my UWA (including FE) I can't pick a favorite.