Best 24mm for landscape photography

I really like 24mm for landscape photography. I have the 24/2.8 at the moment and am fairly happy with it. I am really just after opinions as im considering trading it for another 24mm lens as I know all the competitors are well regarded.

Background info first. The lense would be used at f8-f13ish for the majority of the time. It will be used on a full frame camera. Full frame is one of the issues with the current 24 as it vignets if used at 2.8, which I do sometimes use. Secondly Id do not really mind whether the lens can do 2.8 as opposed to 4.0. I am more for IS than lower aperture as IS can keep the f-stop smaller and give similar shutter speeds.

The lenses I can for see as choices are the 24-105, 17-40, 24-70 and the 24L. Im really just after opinions on which of these lenses deliver best colour, sharpness at the pre mentioned fstops and any other reason.

As far as simple flexibility I know the pros and cons of each. I would like the 17 so I can combine my wide lenses even though I rarely want wider than 24, I like the 105 because I do more tele-landscapes than I would expect and it has IS, I would love the option of 1.4 (but not sure whether id rather is in a 35L or 50L later on).

So all im really after is a comparison of Chromatic abheration and colour and sharpness and real world experience. Price is not really an issue as I dont see any of these lenses as wasted money.

Thank you to anyone who can help me out.

Adam

Have you considered the T&S 24?

The reason I don't say go for the 1.4L is when shooting landscapes the speed isn't all that necessary because you should be using a tri-pod but the tilt and shift could be a great feature.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5885063
Have you considered the T&S 24?

The reason I don't say go for the 1.4L is when shooting landscapes the speed isn't all that necessary because you should be using a tri-pod but the tilt and shift could be a great feature.

what's the benefit of T & S? to straighten the lines?

cricketboy75 wrote in post #5885112
what's the benefit of T & S? to straighten the lines?

There is also DOF control and easy panos (especially important with wide as you may have foreground objects that need that extra bit of lovin'). CA is a bit wild at times.

The 1.4L would be a waste for landscapes. I've not used it but the 17-40 would probably be the best bang for the buck. I also have the 16-35 for the faster aperture but if you don't need that, most say the 17-40 is nearly the equal when you're stopping down anyway.

The tilt-shift is nice but is more limited in the focal length, more expensive, and probably due for an update.

just bought a tamron 17-50. would i get better pics for landscape if i bought a 17-40L? am going to NY next month and could look around for a used one at B&H or Adorama...shhh...don't tell the wife!

The TS-E 24mm would be excellent for serious landscape photography. As 'Hoff mentions, a bright prime like the f/1.4 would be somewhat of a waste for a couple of reasons. The only downside to the TS-E is that it's manual focus (not a problem for landscape photography though).

The 24 TS-E is a great landscape lens. I quite enjoy using mine, the ability to control perspective and make flawless panos easy are really useful.

I hadnt considered the TS lens. Might be worth some investigation. Thank you for the comments on the 24L as well.

If you are into alternative lenses, many say that the Olympus (Zuiko) 21mm f/3.5 is a killer UWA on FF; see this thread...
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/65801​9/0


Personally, I use the 17-40 on the 5D....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

One thing to note, about the 17-40, at the 17mm end, depending on what you are shooting, on the 5D there is some barrel distortion. It's minor, but existant nonetheless. If you can live with that, 24mm is cake.

The colours in those photos are fantastic. I would consider another brand if people recommend them and adapters.

TheHoff wrote in post #5885136
The 1.4L would be a waste for landscapes. I've not used it but the 17-40 would probably be the best bang for the buck.

I'd agree with this. I have the 24mm 2.8 and it is a great little lens, but for 'serious' landscape use I would advocate the 17-40mm and a Lee/Hitech filter set, Lee foundation kit and 77mm WA lens mount. Bang per buck is very high and the set up is primed for quality and consistency.

Yeah, the Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/3.5 or the 24mm f/2.8 are both absolutely stellar. You lose autofocus, but what does that matter for landscape shooting? The Oly 24 f/2.8 will run you around $200 and another $20 for the adapter, and you're set with one of the best wide angle primes around! Of course, you can also spring for the 24L, which is also outstanding, a bit better than the Zuiko, but for far more money.

There's a 24mm 'world cup' where the little Zuiko finished second only to the 24L among 10 lenses or so.

My little Zuiko 28 f/3.5 is the same way...incredible to the corners, even wide open, for $45.

cricketboy75 wrote in post #5885112
what's the benefit of T & S? to straighten the lines?

To shift the plane of focus and give you apparent huge depth of field