Hi all,
I'm having trouble deciding what lens to get for wide-angle landscape. I'm looking to bump my landscape photography up to another level. After having my 5D II stolen last year, I'm finally repurchasing it (I also have a 50d, which I like a lot). I'm getting it with the kit 24-105 f/4L.
I had gotten a 24 mm TSE and had used it some, but not enough to get proficient at it. It was stolen with the rest of the stuff. So now I'm wondering whether to repurchase the tilt-shift (plus the 17 mm TS eventually), or to get the 16-35 mm f/2.8L and just be happy with the zoom coverage I'll have from 16-200 (I have the 70-200 f/4). The other lens I'm looking at is the 24 mm f/1.4 prime.
I should say that I go out in fairly harsh conditions, so weather-proofness is important. I am going to Alaska soon, for e.g. Honestly though, the camera body seems to be the weak link in that regard.
A big factor in the decision is this: being fairly unfamiliar with the various software out there, I wonder whether the distortion correction of the tilt-shift is just as well-accomplished with software correction as it is during capture with the tilt? Also, does focus-stacking do just as good a job at creating a front to back sharp image at medium apertures as does using the tilt on a tilt-shift? In other words, if I decide to go the prime route, is it a no-brainer going with the 24 mm f/1.4 with AF and fixing any distortion/focus stacking later, vs. repurchasing the 24 TS? I know what the answer was some years ago (tilt shift gives much better results), but is this still true? Is software there, or almost there? Having that f/1.4 for the occasional environmental portrait would be pretty sweet, so I don't want to spend the dough on tilt-shift if I don't have to.
Finally, I'm thinking of just sticking with the 24-105 zoom for now, especially considering the supply issues, but then I think of quality, and the upcoming shoots, and...well you get the idea.