Which landscape lens to get for upcoming Canon 5Ds purchase...

[Hans Kruse]

If you take a look at the comparison here, at f/5.6 and smaller there's not a much difference between the f/2.8 and f/4 lens, but the weight difference is considerable. It really depends on whether you need a max aperture of f/2.8.

I had have had both versions and sold the f/4 again. The f/2.8 for me wins by a margin, but it is heavy. The mass helps handheld shooting although (of course) a tripod is always advisable for landscape shooting. However I often shoot handheld when the light is good enough. I also like the f/2.8 doing wild flower shots with the very nice bokeh this lens has. But the weight difference is like another extra wide angle lens.

[NancyP]

Hans, I shoot a fair amount in forests and glades, and the 35mm lens on a FF camera gives me a wide-but-natural "intimate landscape" view that is versatile in the local terrain. If there is a strong foreground feature or great skies, or I am shooting a feature in a restricted space (small slot canyon, for example - we have lots of eroded limestone and dolomite), I use the 21mm lens, but often those elements are lacking. My locale (mostly Ozarks hills and river bottomlands) is not particularly "grand".

[DeanChriss]

Perhaps I stressed the weight issue too much, especially since the OP didn't mention weight as an issue.

I do have a bias toward lighter equipment lately. A couple years ago I went on what was for me a very difficult photo hike. There were miles of deep sand and significant elevation changes. I left my 70-200 f/2.8 lens behind because it was just too heavy to carry along with everything else I needed. As it turned out I could have made very good use of a 70-200mm lens. Not having one bugged me so much that my quivering legs and buying a 70-200 f/4 were all I thought about on the hike out. When I got back to my vehicle I was as exhausted as I have ever been, so leaving the heavy lens behind was actually the right decision. OTOH, having a lighter version of it and making other weight adjustments to compensate would have gotten much higher quality photos than those I didn't get. For decades I carried mostly f/2.8 lenses and Canon 1-series bodies everywhere but that hike made me realize that weight and time were starting to make a tangible difference in what I could accomplish. A couple f/4 lenses and the much lighter 5DSR may put some spring back in my step when I need to hike. I'll keep the other stuff around for when I don't.

[Rainer SLP]

Perhaps I stressed the weight issue too much, especially since the OP didn't mention weight as an issue.

I do have a bias toward lighter equipment lately. A couple years ago I went on what was for me a very difficult photo hike. There were miles of deep sand and significant elevation changes. I left my 70-200 f/2.8 lens behind because it was just too heavy to carry along with everything else I needed. As it turned out I could have made very good use of a 70-200mm lens. Not having one bugged me so much that my quivering legs and buying a 70-200 f/4 were all I thought about on the hike out. When I got back to my vehicle I was as exhausted as I have ever been, so leaving the heavy lens behind was actually the right decision. OTOH, having a lighter version of it and making other weight adjustments to compensate would have gotten much higher quality photos than those I didn't get. For decades I carried mostly f/2.8 lenses and Canon 1-series bodies everywhere but that hike made me realize that weight and time were starting to make a tangible difference in what I could accomplish. A couple f/4 lenses and the much lighter 5DSR may put some spring back in my step when I need to hike. I'll keep the other stuff around for when I don't.

Good reason which I am starting to feel too 

BTW, I looked at your profile and you are 14 Years Old 

[Hans Kruse]

Hans, I shoot a fair amount in forests and glades, and the 35mm lens on a FF camera gives me a wide-but-natural "intimate landscape" view that is versatile in the local terrain. If there is a strong foreground feature or great skies, or I am shooting a feature in a restricted space (small slot canyon, for example - we have lots of eroded limestone and dolomite), I use the 21mm lens, but often those elements are lacking. My locale (mostly Ozarks hills and river bottomlands) is not particularly "grand".

Thanks Nancy for you answer. That makes sense. Btw. I just checked my last US trip folder and a lot were shot at 24mm up to 35mm. Still about 50% were shot with the 70-200. I was in Utah, Death Valley and Yosemite.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is that there is nothing like a landscape lens. Wide angles are useful but so are telephoto lenses. Regarding zooms vs. primes, a well designed zoom will be quite excellent over a part of it's focusing range, so they are often better than primes midrange. According to Hubert Nasse of Zeiss, this depends on the zoom lenses having a large number of air to glass surfaces, thus giving good options to correct aberrations.

For instance, a classical 50/1.4 may contain seven lenses, a classical double "Gauss" configuration with a field flattening element. The Zeiss Otus has 12 elements in 10 groups and uses a Distagon type design. Much of this effort goes into maximising performance at full aperture and reducing vignetting and "colour bokeh". But, the Otus will not perform a lot better than a normal double Gauss + field flattener design at f/8.

Personally, I am using the following lenses for landscape:

- Sigma 10/3.5 APS-C fisheye lens
- Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 zoom (the old version)
- Samyang 14/2.8, this lens has a terrible moustache type distortion but it is very sharp at f/5.6 and beyond
- Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8 zoom. This lens has a large "sweet spot" but has bad corners. Not very good at 70 mm.
- A Minolta 100/2.8 Macro lens
- Sony 70-400/4-5.6G. A very good lens with very well controlled axial chroma

Now, I am using Sony and the OP asks about lenses for Canon. Still I feel that my experience with Sony is a bit relevant, as canon has similar lenses.

What I see in my set up is that 70-85 mm is  a week spot. Here I am eyeing the new Batis 85/1.8. I would like the Otus 85/1.4 but both size and costs speak against it. A Sigma 70/2.8 macro may be an economic alternative. Zeiss has a Sonnar 135/2.0 APO, that is quite affordable. Unfortunately I don't feel 135 mm is where my heart lives.

Getting back to Canon, my impression is that the new lenses like the 11-24/4, 16-35/4 and the 24-70/2.8 LII are very good. They will match the 50MP sensor very well.

Here are some images from 2014:
10 mm fishey:

70-400 at 140 mm:

24-70/2.8 at 24 mm:


Best regards
Erik

I'm a bit amused by the recent Nikon shooters responses.

However if the OP want's to get the best Canon lenses for this camera there are a few choices among zoom lenses:

Canon 16-35 f/4L IS -- an excellent and moderately priced lens which is much better than the older Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II which I do not recommend.
Canon 11-24 f/4 -- a new best in class lens which is also very expensive.
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II -- a very good standard range zoom lens although a bit pricy the best lens in this category for the 5DS.

There are prime lenses as well, but with the quality of the above zoom lenses I would recommend to replace the 17-40 with the 16-35 f/4L IS.

Many landscape shooters think that an ultra wide angle lens is the best for landscapes. In my opinion this is not the case. There are scenes that lends themselves nicely to a wide angle or ultra wide angle lens, however in many landscapes I will shoot exclusively with a 70-200 lens. For the Canon 5DS the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is a very good lens however the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the better lens to choose for landscapes simply due to the optical quality.

[NancyP]

You want bias toward light weight? I have found that the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM is a fine lens for landscape, and it is ~130 grams.