16-35 or 24mm prime for landscape photography?

I'm just now starting to enjoy landscape photography and I'm feeling like I want a wider lens. I own the 35mm/1.4ii as I feel it's an amazing all-around lens. I absolutely love it. I bought it not really considering landscape as it wasn't something I tried previously.
I love prime lenses and was never really a fan of zooms. I've never had a high quality zoom so I'm sure if that is what contributes to it. I know the 16-35 is super versatile, but my love for primes is what is holding me back to just clicking any buying. My thought is that if I'm anywhere near 35mm I'd much rather use my prime. I'll never shoot the 16-35 at or near 35mm. So on the other side how useful would 16-24mm shooting landscape? Is it useful enough to where I wouldn't want to take advantage of the perks of a 24mm prime?

In short, is the 16-35 worth it considering I own the 35/1.4? Is the range of 16-24 worth it over the 24 prime?

Thanks!

tifosi wrote in post #19193982
I'm just now starting to enjoy landscape photography and I'm feeling like I want a wider lens. I own the 35mm/1.4ii as I feel it's an amazing all-around lens. I absolutely love it. I bought it not really considering landscape as it wasn't something I tried previously.
I love prime lenses and was never really a fan of zooms. I've never had a high quality zoom so I'm sure if that is what contributes to it. I know the 16-35 is super versatile, but my love for primes is what is holding me back to just clicking any buying. My thought is that if I'm anywhere near 35mm I'd much rather use my prime. I'll never shoot the 16-35 at or near 35mm. So on the other side how useful would 16-24mm shooting landscape? Is it useful enough to where I wouldn't want to take advantage of the perks of a 24mm prime?

In short, is the 16-35 worth it considering I own the 35/1.4? Is the range of 16-24 worth it over the 24 prime?

Thanks!

Yes, worth it IMO.

For landscape all you really need is the 16-35 F/4L IS, however, which is cheaper than a 24L. No need for the F/2.8 version of teh zoom IOW.

If you really want to get something better, and have a budget that is large enough, you may consider the TS-E 24L and/or TS-E 17L. As primes, for landscapes and a bunch of other photography applications, they are, IMO, th ebe all and end all .

BTW, personally I am not really into the 35 mm FL, even though with RF I could not resist regardless. Most of my landscapes I tend to shoot with TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L or 24 L II (depending on which I happen to have with me), RF 50L, RF 85L, and the EF 100-400L.
I also have a Samyang XP Premium XP 10 F/3.5 in EF lens mount, which I also use, but not really as often as the rest. Do note I am a prime shooter first and foremost, although I do see myself getting the RF 15-35L once I have the budget for it.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for the thought out response. Yes, I was planning to get the 16-35/f4 if I went that direction. I'd be at f8-f11 almost exclusively I imagine. That being said, it sounds silly to be wavering between that and and the 24/f1.4 if I'll be at f8-f11 haha. I'm going to rent both and see how I feel. Just wanted to bounce this off some experienced people.

Heya,

When stopping down these lenses to F8 or smaller, there's virtually no difference. So it's just some nostalgic or mental thing. I suggest you let go of that and just let the tool be a tool and not more than that. The 16-35F4L IS is an outstanding lens. It will be indistinguishable to most primes at F8.

Also, landscape doesn't just mean "wide" lenses. Use a wide lens on a distant mountain scape and it will look like a hill with a bunch of foreground or sky and a tiny wee dwarf mount somewhere. Just an example. Don't let your mind get stuck in the "wide" angle perspective. Landscape can be any lens. It's all about perspective relative to your subject and composition.

Can you share some examples of what you like to shoot the most?

Very best,

tifosi wrote in post #19194308
Thanks for the thought out response. Yes, I was planning to get the 16-35/f4 if I went that direction. I'd be at f8-f11 almost exclusively I imagine. That being said, it sounds silly to be wavering between that and and the 24/f1.4 if I'll be at f8-f11 haha. I'm going to rent both and see how I feel. Just wanted to bounce this off some experienced people.

Considering its IQ, price, and that it has IS as well, I wouldn't think twice for landscapes and similar types of subjects.: do yourself a favour, and get it, indeed .

The 24L is great, but to get the most out of it, you'd want to use it at large apertures. It really shines in dark environments with highlights at large apertures, in short, indoors in the dark with a few lights on.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I was just out 2 days ago with the 16-35 f4, spent over an hour shooting exclusively with that, lens very sharp, and for certain scenes it's a great range. I like the versatility of being able to frame things just the way I want that you get with a zoom. I suspect if you had the 16-35, once you had it on your camera, you wouldn't suddenly want to swap it out for a 35 if that's what the shot called for. If you want to see a few samples, go to the Flickr link below, the first 3 pictures you'll see were taken with the 16-35. The resolution is reduced for Flickr, but the sharpness should be apparent.

If it's a lens that won't be used very often, a used 17-40mm could also be an option. Stopped down some the results would be similar.

For some reason it seems like people are almost having to give them away. I've seen a couple go for $300. If I can find one in the $200 range I'm going to pick one up.

I want a wide angle but I won't use it enough justify one of the higher end models. I see many for sale for that reason.

Personally I really like the range of that zoom for landscapes.
Sure one can "footzoom" but when i get set up on a tripod and start shooting, if it was a prime, I'm not clever enough to say to myself, "if I ran 80 feet that way, the composition might be so much better."
whereas with the zoom, I can just twist the ring back and forth and look through viewfinder and go "oh, that's better"

jeffreynmandy wrote in post #19195766
If it's a lens that won't be used very often, a used 17-40mm could also be an option. Stopped down some the results would be similar.

For some reason it seems like people are almost having to give them away. I've seen a couple go for $300. If I can find one in the $200 range I'm going to pick one up.

I want a wide angle but I won't use it enough justify one of the higher end models. I see many for sale for that reason.

I had that lens for a few months last year, and the corners were so mushy I dumped the lens and picked up the 16-35, much much better. I wondered if somehow the 17-40 had an issue, but whatever it was, I just didn't like it.

jeffreynmandy wrote in post #19195766
If it's a lens that won't be used very often, a used 17-40mm could also be an option. Stopped down some the results would be similar.

For some reason it seems like people are almost having to give them away. I've seen a couple go for $300. If I can find one in the $200 range I'm going to pick one up.

I want a wide angle but I won't use it enough justify one of the higher end models. I see many for sale for that reason.

Well, let's agree to disagree.

With a lens like that, you are often at the extreme ends, and the 17-40 is at the UWA end not very great in the corners. I would therefore not recommend it for landscape photography.
Personally, I was getting really upset when composing with stuff along the edges, and not being able to get it sharp at the edges, even when it was well within DoF - I did try different focusing distances.

The 16-35 F/4L IS promises to be much sharper in those circumstances, and based on all the test I read, it actually is.

If you don't use a lens a lot, and the IQ disappoints when you use it, you stop using it, and in that case you might just as well not have bought it.

I was happy with the 17-40L on my crop cameras, but I sold it on when I saw the results on FF.

Kind regards, Wim

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19195768
Personally I really like the range of that zoom for landscapes.
Sure one can "footzoom" but when i get set up on a tripod and start shooting, if it was a prime, I'm not clever enough to say to myself, "if I ran 80 feet that way, the composition might be so much better."
whereas with the zoom, I can just twist the ring back and forth and look through viewfinder and go "oh, that's better"

It depends on how much time you allow yourself for that perfect shot.

Personally, I prefer primes, I only use zooms for convenience, unless there is no other viable option (either budget constraints or IQ for that matter).
However, I grew up with primes, so I don't mind walking around a bit. In addition, I generally know which prime to use for which shot, for what I have in mind .

I don't mind climbing a tree or lying on the ground either .

Kind regards, Wim

patrick j wrote in post #19195775
I had that lens for a few months last year, and the corners were so mushy I dumped the lens and picked up the 16-35, much much better. I wondered if somehow the 17-40 had an issue, but whatever it was, I just didn't like it.

No, it is inherent to the design. Great for crop cameras, not so great when using it on the short end and having something in the corners or near the edges.

Kind regards, Wim

I have both lenses, both are great but for landscapes I’d go with the 16-35.

I can't help wondering if you might not want to consider something longer than your 24mm rather than shorter?

'Landscape Photography' is a bit of a catch-all term and like most things in life sometimes the answer is "it depends" on exactly what one means by that.

I used to think landscape photography was all about getting the widest angles possible and photographing huge open spaces, but increasingly I'm finding my 'landscape' compositions are much improved with tighter framing, like 35-100mm.

I love my 35mm prime but oftentimes the longer end of the cheap and cheerful 18-135 gets the money shot; the former being obviously better for IQ for static compositions (e.g. buildings etc), whereas the latter is unbeatable for walkaround hiking when you suddenly see an unusual shaft of light coming through the trees in the mid-distance or whatever.

Just my $0.02!

patrick j wrote in post #19194606
I was just out 2 days ago with the 16-35 f4, spent over an hour shooting exclusively with that, lens very sharp, and for certain scenes it's a great range. I like the versatility of being able to frame things just the way I want that you get with a zoom. I suspect if you had the 16-35, once you had it on your camera, you wouldn't suddenly want to swap it out for a 35 if that's what the shot called for. If you want to see a few samples, go to the Flickr link below, the first 3 pictures you'll see were taken with the 16-35. The resolution is reduced for Flickr, but the sharpness should be apparent.

Couldn't help but notice that those shots were taken at ~24mm...hahaha.

Pics are great though and it's nice to see the IQ of the 16-35 f4.

I appreciate the convo, here. I know it will come down to my preference. I think I may purchase them both, pre-owned, and see which one I reach for the most. Sell the other.