Recommend a lense for landscape photography

Hi,

I'm getting a 6D and wondering which lenses work well on a FF sensor. I mostly shoot landscape and some portraits. I currently have these Canon lenses - 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4L non IS. I'm looking in to standard or wide or ultra wide ranges. I have no problem shooting zooms or primes but mostly prefer primes due to usually good price and sharpness package.

Which ones would you recommend for landscape work that are sharp corner to corner?

Heya,

Your 70-200 will cover the telephoto side of landscape nicely.

A 16-35 F4L IS would be the gem to get on the wide side.

Very best,

I think the question is a little off center. I have lenses from 12mm FE to 400mm. I believe I've used all of them for landscape type shots at one time or another. Generally, wide is accepted as landscape worthy, but you can use any lens that does what you want. I bought my latest lens, Σ12-24mm II, specifically for landscape/architecture stuff. But that may not work for what you want. My general lens is a 24-105, which does landscapes nicely. I have a 17-40, but don't use it much, and may be selling it because I have the entire range covered with 12-24 & 24-105.

I think most lenses are sufficiently sharp across the frame at f/8-11. Mostly none of them are wide open.

16-35 F4 if you don't mind spending a bit more, 17-40 F4 (used or refurb) if you want to keep the cost low.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18310779
Heya,

Your 70-200 will cover the telephoto side of landscape nicely.

A 16-35 F4L IS would be the gem to get on the wide side.

Very best,

+1 to the above.

The 16-35 f/4 isn't as sharp as the new f/2.8, but it's really very good.

The 24mm TSE is superb, but specialist and pricey. The 16-35 by comparison would be much more versatile.

The 16-35, with your 50mm and 70-200 would cover you for a really wide range of work, and shouldn't be too bad to carry.

The best landscape wide I have in Canon mount is certainly the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8. Love the colors and sharpness.

I also have the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, which I use for everything else wide. It can be a very good landscape lens, and the 2 extra stops are really nice for some 3D pop. It also has AF but it misses a lot.

sploo wrote in post #18310788
The 16-35 f/4 isn't as sharp as the new f/2.8, but it's really very good.

I guess I could check, but is the 2.8 much sharper at f8?

Above advice is all great.

When you shoot landscape do you carry a tripod or shoot handheld? If you carry a tripod then ~f/4 without IS is fine -BUT- if you are shooting only hand held (specially in low light) you might want to consider ~f/2.8 and/or image stabilization (even though the 6D high ISO performance is great).

ps. Always take a tripod :P

DesolateMirror wrote in post #18311021
ps. Always take a tripod :P

My version is: Always take a friend who has a tripod :P

DesolateMirror wrote in post #18311021
Above advice is all great.

When you shoot landscape do you carry a tripod or shoot handheld? If you carry a tripod then ~f/4 without IS is fine -BUT- if you are shooting only hand held (specially in low light) you might want to consider ~f/2.8 and/or image stabilization (even though the 6D high ISO performance is great).

ps. Always take a tripod :P

I usually shoot between f8 and f11 and I do bring a tripod. I'd like a 2.8 lense for star photography but I'd probably get a Samyang 14mm 2.8 at some point for that purpose. Unless I get a fast zoom close to that focal range which I could use for both purposes. A used 17-40mm seems to be going around for quite cheap but 16-35mm sounds very nice indeed. I'll have to check the prices on those. I don't want to spend over a 1000$ (preferably as little as possible) but I understand you have to spend some money if you want better glass.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18311038
My version is: Always take a friend who has a tripod :P

lol!

ejenner wrote in post #18311000
I guess I could check, but is the 2.8 much sharper at f8?

Probably so close it doesn't really matter:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

I usually take a bunch of shots on an ISO test chart when I get a new lens - mostly just to check there are no issues. My sample of the 24-70II seems good (it matched another one I tested, and did well against a Canon 50mm f/1.4 that was stopped down to f/2.8).

The 16-35 f/4 IS I have certainly isn't shamed by the 24-70II, so I was initially surprised to see that the f/2.8 III was even better still (hats off to Canon).

However, low-to-medium differences on a black and white test chart, zoomed in, are unlikely to be field relevant. I.e. for real world shooting the differences are far less obvious.

I'd definitely choose the f/2.8 III if I were an astro guy, but the image quality of the f/4 is good enough, and for shooting without a tripod (e.g. castle or stately home interiors where tripods aren't allowed) the IS makes a huge difference; as you can trade 2-3 stops of IS for a smaller aperture and lower ISO.

marsaz wrote in post #18311056
I usually shoot between f8 and f11 and I do bring a tripod. I'd like a 2.8 lense for star photography but I'd probably get a Samyang 14mm 2.8 at some point for that purpose. Unless I get a fast zoom close to that focal range which I could use for both purposes. A used 17-40mm seems to be going around for quite cheap but 16-35mm sounds very nice indeed. I'll have to check the prices on those. I don't want to spend over a 1000$ (preferably as little as possible) but I understand you have to spend some money if you want better glass.

I'd really recommend the new 16-35 models (f/4 or f/2.8 III) over the old 16-35s or 17-40. Whilst the two new lenses are both very good, there is daylight between them and the old models in terms of sharpness.

The Samyang 14mm is a great budget lens. Just make sure you buy it from somewhere that will take returns, as the quality control is a little iffy. Some are great, but many (like the first copy I had) are really bad. Once you get a good one it's a gem though.

sploo wrote in post #18311087
Probably so close it doesn't really matter:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

Yea, it is a bit better in the corners, like you said, hats off to Canon. I have not noticed the CA stopped down on the f4, but if you were picky it might be worth a real-world test.

I do like the IS and weight of the f4 as well though - I hike with my lenses so that is important.

marsaz wrote in post #18311056
A used 17-40mm seems to be going around for quite cheap but 16-35mm sounds very nice indeed. I'll have to check the prices on those. I don't want to spend over a 1000$ (preferably as little as possible) but I understand you have to spend some money if you want better glass.

lol!

The 16-35 is so much better IQ than the 17-40 that I would really try to spring for it. I guess if money is tight and you could get a 17-40 for $300 or so it might be worth it. I wouldn't pay more than 1/2 the cost of a 16-35 for a 17-40 if near-corner IQ is important to you though. You'll want to stop down the 17-40 to f11-f16 to get 'sharp' corners.

For zoom, the 16-35 f4L. You said you prefer prime, if so I would find a Zeiss 21mm Distagon.

That is taking into account what you already have.

Good stuff guys, thanks.
I'm only considering 17-40 because it goes for 300 or so used. I assume that's good value. I've tried a rented one on an aps-c sensor before and was not impressed with the IQ tho. New 16-35s sound the best and I need to look in to that Zeiss option

Btw, has anyone tried the 20mm f1.4 Sigma yet?