Landscape lens?

If I want wide and my 24mm isnt wide enough what are most people using, in Canon L glass? 14mm? 16-35? 17-40? 11-24mm?

I've used the 14, 16-35 and 17-40 and of those liked the 16-35 best. It had better image quality than the 17-40 and was more versatile than the 14. I don't own the 11-24 but I did have a chance to play around with one once. If you are looking to just go wider I don't know that it would be the best option. It will certainly go wider but you will also turn mountains into molehills if not paying particular attention to technique (ie, choosing compositions at the wide end very carefully, moving closer, perspective blending, focal length blending, etc).

Having said that, if I was still shooting Canon I would go for the 11-24, not because it is wider but more because of how that lens can distort objects in the scene to create amazing depth. I go into more of what that means in a previous post.

Crop or FF? How not wide enough, like "just barely" or "not even close"? Willing to put up with distortion?

For a crop camera, the Canon 10-22 is about the best wide angle lens I have seen including the Canon L lenses. For FF, I think the current best is going to be the 16-35.

I like my Tamron 15-30mm for full frame landscapes, I also use my 70-200mm for some landscapes that don't look all that great with wider angles.

Photo from goalerjones's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (981599)

Photo from goalerjones's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (976143)

gjl711 wrote in post #18876596
Crop or FF? How not wide enough, like "just barely" or "not even close"? Willing to put up with distortion?

For a crop camera, the Canon 10-22 is about the best wide angle lens I have seen including the Canon L lenses. For FF, I think the current best is going to be the 16-35.

FF, 5d4. I'd prefer to avoid distortion. I bought the Canon 35mm f/1.4 v2 because of the corner distortion the Canon 24mm can exhibit. I wouldn't even have considered the 14mm until I recently discovered that it is rectilinear and doesn't distort the corners/edges. I really dont know just how wide I want to or should go, I don't have definitive need at the moment. I thought I would browse the forum to see what lens was most common but as you know its over 2300+ pages and a bazillion posts.

I started with the 17-40 on the 5D3, it was good, but when the 16-35 f/4 came out, I sold the 17-40. That 16-35 has IS so you can hand hold when needed. It's sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II and more affordable. It's a little slow for astro but I have a Rok 14mm for that. I often use square and rectangular filters for my landscapes and there is minimal vignetting with the 16-35, nothing that can't be finished in post. Sometimes I find 16mm a bit too wide, in that case I shoot a two to five image pano in portrait orientation with the 16-35. Depending on the scene, those panos can have a fair amount of distortion when shot at 16mm, but I can almost always fix in post. I shoot a fair amount of timelapse on a three axis slider and again, the 16-35 is my favorite lens. If you are looking to save a few dollars more, they are often available from Canon as factory refurbs with the same warranty as new.

I've been wanting to upgrade for WA landscape lens & medium zoom for sports. I ended with the 24-70mm F/4 for the sports thing & trying to decide about the WA.

I have it narrowed down to the 16-35mm F/4 or 17-40mm F/4. The 17-40mm is literally half the price of the 16-35mm but is quite long in the tooth. If money is no the issue, then I believe the 16-35mm is the easy choice.

I have to say, if I do pursue another lens, for UWA,it will likely be the latest 16-35 f/4 L. I don't really NEED this lens so the cost of the v3 2.8 takes it out of consideration.

Well, considering you said landscapes, 2.8 is unnecessarily heavy and expensive.

I've had the 10-22 on crop, 17-40 on FF and have what is in my sig. 16-35f4 L would be my strong recommendation. Pretty small and light, excellent IQ, especially at the wide end, easy to use filters.

For Pigpen, I haven't looked at the 17-40 in a while but if it is *only* 1/2 the price, I would suck it up and get the 16-35. It won't leave you wanting to get something better. It's not just that it is better, it's the fact that the 17-40 really has some issues at the wide end, and if you buy used, then there is a decent chance it could be slightly de centered. The 16-35 copies seem more consistent. A 17-40 for $200 or 16-35 for $800, then I could see a dilemma.

ejenner

Yeah, the 17-40mm is quite old & $300 off, down to $499. This leads me to believe that it's on its way out. It will most likely not be replaced as the 16-35mm basically covers the same range & it looks like Canon is going to put some emphasis into the mirrorless lens.

The 16-35mm F/4 is definitely in my sights, but not immediately. I get paid for sports & landscapes are just for fun, that's why I got the 24-70mm first. I wish I could afford the F/2.8, but $1,600 is tough to swallow.

You're correct. I would more than likely end up regretting not getting the much newer optics with the 16-35mm.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18877790
ejenner

Yeah, the 17-40mm is quite old & $300 off, down to $499. This leads me to believe that it's on its way out. It will most likely not be replaced as the 16-35mm basically covers the same range & it looks like Canon is going to put some emphasis into the mirrorless lens. ...

I think that the 16-35 is the 17-40 replacement.

Maybe get some practice with stitching images at 24mm when you need to? It's a good skill to have in your back pocket for landscapes. You just can't get really close to the foreground with that UWA effect.

I really hate being a 'gear snob', to me it it about the images, not the gear. But perhaps even more so when it is not your job, you want to have fun, enjoy the gear and the (nice crisp) images you produce. I cannot in all honestly recommend the 17-40 for that. As photographers we are likely much more particular than most clients or people that look at our photos and prints.

16-35 f/4L IS USM incoming.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18884290
16-35 f/4L IS USM incoming.

Congrats

You know me, always watching for a pre-owned gem.