5DS with 24-105 L for landscapes

Hey guys, hoping you might have some insights. I shoot a lot of macro and intimate landscapes (mostly waterfalls) with my 5DS. For macro I have a nice setup with the 100 2.8 IS L, but for landscapes I use my 24-105 IS L. It's a nice, versatile lens, but the distortion, vignetting (made worse when paired with a vignetting filter), and corner sharpness at 24-28mm (my most-shot focal length with that lens) leaves a lot to be desired. I like to shoot live view on a tripod, and sometimes with a 10 stop ND filter when I use it. I will sometimes handhold and actually prefer that if possible, but the 5DS prefers a tripod so that's what I give it haha.

I was wondering if you guys have any advice on either mitigating said issues with the 24-105 L, or any suggestions on lens. I'm really not worried about the longer focal lengths of that range since I have the 100 L. I've been researching lens like the Canon 16-35 f4 IS L and the Sigma 24 f1.4 to hit that 24mm focal length and would like something new to my kit, not just a replacement (e.g. I don't own any f1.4 lens and I don't have anything wider than 24mm). Bit of pre-reqs, I use ND filters and (sometimes) polarizers for waterfalls so it needs to be able to accept filters. Additionally, I'd prefer good build/weather sealing (e.g. protect from waterfall mist and rain). I like AF, but it's not mandatory. I have looked at the TS/E lens from Canon and they're amazing, but probably more than I should spend lol.

Any advice?

Canon is updating the tilt shifts. I can't remember which exactly, but it was 4 of them I think. That might put a used 24 in your range.

Otherwise the best 16-35 you can afford would be my suggestion.

16-35L f4 IS or 16-35L III and/or 24-70L II.

Well the 24-70mm 2.8L II will be better with all the stated aspects you find lacking with the 24-105. I try using slim CPL filters on my lenses to minimize vignetting. But you also state it's for landscapes/waterfalls. I honestly find the 16-35mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8, and 70-200mm lenses to be a great marriage of zoom lengths. I would say for my own landscapes, I would first pick up the 16-35mm.

Yes, the 24-105 is disappointing.
Go primes. Get a nice used Zeiss ZE 21/2.8. One of the best landscape lenses ever, with great contrast and colors.
If you also need something around 50, get a used Zeiss ZE 50/2 MP. Same as above in 50mm and 1:2 Macro.
The Sigma 24/1.4 Art is ok too (if you need the wider aperture), but stay away from the Sigma 20/1.4 if you need to use filters.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18449034
Yes, the 24-105 is disappointing.
Go primes. Get a nice used Zeiss ZE 21/2.8. One of the best landscape lenses ever, with great contrast and colors.
If you also need something around 50, get a used Zeiss ZE 50/2 MP. Same as above in 50mm and 1:2 Macro.
The Sigma 24/1.4 Art is ok too (if you need the wider aperture), but stay away from the Sigma 20/1.4 if you need to use filters.

+1 on the Zeiss 21 f/2.8. That lens is truly magical. I've tried to sell it three times now --- each time because I got another lens that came close or overlapped that focal length --- and each time I see an image taken by that lens pop up on a 4K screen it so takes my breath away that I cancel that listing!

For landscapes 16-35 f/4 would be my first choice. I have an excellent copy of the 24-105, and consider it a good all around/travel lens, but most of us prefer wider for landscapes.

I've got both the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 21/2.8. Using the 16-35 over the Zeiss involves sacrificing excellence to achieve flexibility but I'm sure that either lens will provide satisfaction.

Bob

As to options I am with ed rader.

I own the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS and the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L + I have used the Canon 16-35 F2.8 L Mk3.

The 16-35 F4 L IS fits my needs better than the F2.8 Mk3 and is an excellent lens at a sensible price. I do prefer my Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 but it is not streets ahead of my 16-35 F4 L IS where their focal lengths cross at landscape apertures - hope that makes sense!

If 24mm is wide enough and you want the flexibility of a zoom then I would strongly suggest the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2. If you need wider then the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS is very nice and quite a bit cheaper!

Just food for thought?

Hey everybody, thanks for the suggestions! So it's kind of sounding like you guys are recommending three lens:

-Canon 24-70 f2.8 II: this would outright replace my 24-105 but is the most expensive and doesn't have IS. That said, it seems like it has good performance and flexibility, plus I can sell my 24-105.

-Canon 16-35 f4 IS: this would compliment my 24-105 on the wider end. Seems like a solid lens that's well priced, but maximum aperture of f4 is nothing to write home about. That said, I'm leaning away from the f2.8 III version of this because of the price vs relative gains.

-Zeiss 21 f2.8 ZE: this would compliment my 24-105 and I've heard some really, really good things about it, but no AF and no IS. That's not a problem, I used to shoot almost exclusively with SMC Takumars, but it's a consideration. I realize that this lens doesn't have a rear gasket and therefore isn't weather sealed, but does anybody have experience with it on beaches or concerns with dust or sand?

Thanks!

djh5331 wrote in post #18449753
Hey everybody, thanks for the suggestions! So it's kind of sounding like you guys are recommending three lens:

-Canon 24-70 f2.8 II: this would outright replace my 24-105 but is the most expensive and doesn't have IS. That said, it seems like it has good performance and flexibility, plus I can sell my 24-105.

-Canon 16-35 f4 IS: this would compliment my 24-105 on the wider end. Seems like a solid lens that's well priced, but maximum aperture of f4 is nothing to write home about. That said, I'm leaning away from the f2.8 III version of this because of the price vs relative gains.

-Zeiss 21 f2.8 ZE: this would compliment my 24-105 and I've heard some really, really good things about it, but no AF and no IS. That's not a problem, I used to shoot almost exclusively with SMC Takumars, but it's a consideration. I realize that this lens doesn't have a rear gasket and therefore isn't weather sealed, but does anybody have experience with it on beaches or concerns with dust or sand?

Thanks!

Yes, that would be the best order, from your described shooting, IMO.

Add me to the list of 16-35 f/4 L IS club.
Being able to shoot handheld at 1/10 -1/15" consistently inside the churches of Europe where tripods are prohibited proved to me the added benefit of IS outweighs the one additional stop. Most of my landscape work is stopped down anyway.
Adding a 16-35 f/4 L IS to your 24-105 f/4 L IS is a nice start to building your collection.

djh5331 wrote in post #18449753
-Zeiss 21 f2.8 ZE:
[...]
I realize that this lens doesn't have a rear gasket and therefore isn't weather sealed, but does anybody have experience with it on beaches or concerns with dust or sand?

No gasket unless you buy the newer Milvus version (same optical design).
I am not worried about using the ZE (pre-Milvus) lens with drizzle and sand, but I'd use other lenses with rain and/or fine dust.

If you want something wider than 24mm, and you are also thinking of a prime, you could go 16-35 F4, and a 35mm F2 IS, and still have a bunch of change left over from the newer F2.8 zooms.

It's nice to have the 35mm around the house for low light and nice DOF pics.

Monkey moss wrote in post #18450593
If you want something wider than 24mm, and you are also thinking of a prime, you could go 16-35 F4, and a 35mm F2 IS, and still have a bunch of change left over from the newer F2.8 zooms.

I've heard a lot of really good things about that prime, seems like everybody on this form owns one haha. I'm honestly not convinced about that focal length, though, not really sure why but I prefer either wider or tighter, like a 50 mm. I guess I'm either trying to capture a landscape where I want wider (< 28mm), an intimate landscape where I want tighter (50-100 mm), or a macro image.