Wide-angle lens for landscape

I'm looking to buy one or more wide angle lenses, one in 20-24mm and one 35mm. I nearly bought 16-35mm f4 but I'm not much for zoom lenses and read that it isn't so good at 35mm end. I will be using it mostly on 35mm and sometimes about 24mm for landscape shots. I prefer compact and not so heavy lenses that's why I like primes.

I have been looking at 35mm f2 IS and 24mm f2.8 IS, the 24mm hasn't got very good reviews it seems. 24/2.8 II is out of my budget though. Any suggestions? It will be used on a 5D Mark II.

By all accounts I've heard, the 16-35 is a great lens (and it'll one day replace my 17-40 ).
The 17-40 isn't very large and not very heavy. I suspect the 16-35 isn't much larger or heavier.

However, if you want to stick to primes... I would go to the 24 and 35 IS. How does the 24mm compare to other 24mm lenses? I suggest also looking into the Sigma 24 and 35 Art.
Also keep in mind that all lenses have "problems" if you go by reviews. Think about how each of them is going to perform in YOUR shooting style.

The 16-35L f/4 may technically be weakest at 35mm, but unless you pixel peep I doubt you'll notice. It's a fine lens, and probably not much heavier than the combined weight of the two primes you are considering.

palwin wrote in post #17593885
I'm looking to buy one or more wide angle lenses, one in 20-24mm and one 35mm. I nearly bought 16-35mm f4 but I'm not much for zoom lenses and read that it isn't so good at 35mm end. I will be using it mostly on 35mm and sometimes about 24mm for landscape shots. I prefer compact and not so heavy lenses that's why I like primes.

I have been looking at 35mm f2 IS and 24mm f2.8 IS, the 24mm hasn't got very good reviews it seems. 24/2.8 II is out of my budget though. Any suggestions? It will be used on a 5D Mark II.

Heya,

Realistically, a prime for what you're wanting to use it for, isn't much different from a good zoom. The 16-35 F4L IS is a phenomenal lens and quite good even at 35mm. You have to remember you're stopping this lens down for what you're doing. It's corner performance is very good. You're not going to get anything with better performance honestly from a prime for these purposes, because again, you're stopping down the aperture. Otherwise, the 17-40 F4L is also very good stopped down. Both of these lenses have excellent flare control which to me is one of the more important aspects of a wide angle lens for landscape.

The 35 F2 IS is a great lens, I use it a lot and even for landscape, it handles flare "ok" but it's not as good for flare as the above two zooms and the star spikes the 35 F2 IS makes stopped down are not as pleasing (less spikes, wider spikes). It's of course razor sharp and stopped down performs great, and it's even wicked sharp wide open, but that's not important for what you're shooting.

The 24 F2.8 IS is a very good lens, the 28 F2.8 IS gets more attention due to size and cost and for some reason 28mm is just more popular for a lot of things. The 24 F2.8 IS though is a very good performer.

The problem though is that you have two lenses, both of which are not small, these are large primes actually and weigh more combined than one of the zooms aforementioned.

I'm a near all-prime user myself too. But for ultrawide and wide, I actually just use a zoom because it's more convenient and when stopping down to F8 and F11, primes just don't have much advantage over a zoom at that point. More critical to me is flare control, corner performance and ability to take normal filters when I look at ultrawide and wide angle lenses.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17594080
Heya,

Realistically, a prime for what you're wanting to use it for, isn't much different from a good zoom. The 16-35 F4L IS is a phenomenal lens and quite good even at 35mm. You have to remember you're stopping this lens down for what you're doing. It's corner performance is very good. You're not going to get anything with better performance honestly from a prime for these purposes, because again, you're stopping down the aperture. Otherwise, the 17-40 F4L is also very good stopped down. Both of these lenses have excellent flare control which to me is one of the more important aspects of a wide angle lens for landscape.

The 35 F2 IS is a great lens, I use it a lot and even for landscape, it handles flare "ok" but it's not as good for flare as the above two zooms and the star spikes the 35 F2 IS makes stopped down are not as pleasing (less spikes, wider spikes). It's of course razor sharp and stopped down performs great, and it's even wicked sharp wide open, but that's not important for what you're shooting.

The 24 F2.8 IS is a very good lens, the 28 F2.8 IS gets more attention due to size and cost and for some reason 28mm is just more popular for a lot of things. The 24 F2.8 IS though is a very good performer.

The problem though is that you have two lenses, both of which are not small, these are large primes actually and weigh more combined than one of the zooms aforementioned.

I'm a near all-prime user myself too. But for ultrawide and wide, I actually just use a zoom because it's more convenient and when stopping down to F8 and F11, primes just don't have much advantage over a zoom at that point. More critical to me is flare control, corner performance and ability to take normal filters when I look at ultrawide and wide angle lenses.

Very best,

This is possibly mostly habit of on my part because the last few years been shooting only with my rangefinder, no zooms there. I had the 35L in the past, great lens but usually ended up using my rangefinder because it was easier to take with me. I rarely shoot wide open though but indoors I sometimes do, generally F4 is not a problem for me.

I have looked around a bit, the Sigma lenses looks pretty nice but once again they are big and that's where zooms shine on DSLR because it's only one big lens instead of two. I probably buy the 16-35/4 and see how I like it, can always return it if it really bothers me. Might need a second fast 35mm lens for low light or I just use my rangefinder. Thanks for the input, it was a interesting read

17-40 gets the thumbs up for value, although I've never used one.

16 -35 perfect lenses for landscape...
Im only use lenses 24 - 70 f2.8 for landscape...and the result very nice focus on f8 - 11

I have the 35 IS. This is only a guess, but I believe it has to be better than the 16-35 at f/4. The 35 IS is a prime, two stops from wide open. The 16-35 is (obviously) a zoom and wide open at f/4. I have no complaints at all about the 35 IS.

As far as the 24 2.8 being too expensive, the 28 1.8 is about $300, used. It is also 1-1/3 stops faster, and excellent (in the center) right from f/1.8. For landscapes, the borders sharpen up ALOT (they are crap wide-open, who cares?) by f/8-f/11. Excellent, for the money, I'd say.