Help shortlisting one lens for landscape

[Sunny Alan]

I know 'One lens for landscape' is immature term, but I use my 5D2 for landscape only, for I enlarge printing them upto 30x20 inches +
I was studying many lenses for a 'best' one-lens suiting all general locations, sunrise, noon and sunset, low light conditions and many other parameters: Canon 24 Tse ll and Zeiss 21 are shortlisted.
Both are best, expensive, almost equal in output quality. Anything wider is too wide, 24 is my favorite. Do not think/know any zoom with same sharpness. Also do not like to carry around a 21, 24, 35, 50, 100....

If tilt-shift is Canon's specialisation, rich color is Zeiss's plus point(it is me). Both are best for landscape, but WHICH one is my dilemma.
Landscape specialists are best to decide, hence here.

Please help....

[Paulo Bizarro]

Well, I am no specialist, but I am also comfortable shooting at around 24mm. After pondering, and many years trying different lenses, I now use the ZEISS ZE 25 f/2. The reason I got it was because of the fast aperture, it opens up some new possibilities. Also, I shoot starscapes, so I need sometimes to use f/2 and I need excellent f/2.8.

If you need or like the T-S possibilities, the only game in town is the Canon, period.

[NancyP]

I enjoy(looooove) the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, bought used (boggles that anyone could bear to sell it unless desperate). I use it at f/2.8 for astrophotography. Tiny coma in full frame corners at f/2.8, noticeable only with the very brightest stars. It was a mistake to buy this lens, now I am spoiled.    I have never used the TS-E 24, so can't compare.

[wmchauncey]

Allow me to be an antagonist here...I use, for 95% of my eclectic stuff, either my 180 macro or a 300 f/2.8, mounted on my dated DsMkIII, due to their superior MTF characteristics.
When a wider FOV is needed/wanted...photo-merge is employed.  Gives me a huge file to monitor compose and which can be downsized for a superior image.

[Marlyn]

The canon 24-70 mk II is a stunning piece of glass, even for a zoom, and performs as well as many of the Primes.

It is worth considering.


Otherwise, either of the two you list are fine. 

Regards

Mark

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Treat yourself to the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - a much maligned lens on various fora on the net, but believe me it is a superb lens for landscape work.

24 to 105 is a very nice wide/zoom combination for shooting landscapes and it's as sharp as a Canon L series lens should be, although it does have some slight vignetting when wide open, but that's easily fixed with modern RAW software tools and goes away entirely if you use the lens for stitching. It is also sold at a lower price than recommended retail as a 'white box' version, due to it often being sold as part of a 5D MKxx kit, but then split off from the body and sold separately.

I have quite a few lenses (don't we all), but the 24-105 is my walk about lens and is what I have been using for probably 80% of my shots over the last 7 or 8 years and it's the lens that always goes back onto my camera before it goes back into the bag. You will not be disappointed with this lens, but if you do decide to get one, then buy a new one and not second hand, as they can have a fault on the older versions with the dreaded "err 01" problem, which can cost quite a few quid to get repaired (I paid around £300 last year including shipping and insurance from the Isle of Skye back down to the mainland to get mine repaired) see here for a video showing the error happening, but I had been using the lens a lot and in all weathers and for many years travelling with it to various places around the planet.

I also have the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, which is stunningly sharp when used correctly, but which can be a bit tricky to get the hang of at first, but well worth the effort when you do and it also works quite well with a 1.4x extender, which then makes it around a 35mm TS-E, so two primes for the price of one, but I very rarely use the extender as 24mm is just right for most landscape shooting I find, when all you really want to do is use the tilt to change the plane of focus and use a wider aperture. I also bought the 16 -35mm 2.8 L for landscape shooting many years ago, but I rarely take it out with me any more, as there is just too much distortion and fringing, although I am sure the MkII would be better, I have found I can do better with stitching than I can with single super wide shots, so never felt the need to upgrade it.

I am sure there will be some that disagree with me on the 24-105, as it is only f/4 - f/5.6, which I know isn't the fastest lens on the planet, but for landscape work and at these kind of prices, you really cannot go wrong with this L series lens and with modern cameras being able to use higher ISO speeds without too much visible noise, then f/4 - f/5.6 is no longer such a big issue. So yes the 24 - 105 isn’t perfect, but for a good all-round work horse of a lens for landscape shooting, I don’t think it can be beat, it's not the longest or the sharpest or the widest Canon lens, it's just all-round good and when coupled with the 5D MKxx live view focussing, it can help produce RAW files as pin sharp as you could ever wish for, even when printed out very large - I have recently sold some images mounted on canvas at 48x32 inch shot through the 24 - 105.

In fact to sum up I would put it like this, if I had the misfortune to drop the 24 - 105 and smashed it beyond repair, I would go straight on-line and buy a new one, before I even started sweeping up the debris from the old one.  

Dave

[Dave_Wyatt]

If you are after one lens for what seems to be quite sweeping, patriarchal views of the landscape you'll likely do better with something a bit longer, like a 90mm maybe, or even longer (up to maybe 200mm.  Won't say 300mm as I haven't shot with one of those for at least a decade).  With something like a 21mm or even 24mm, you will just have too much information in the frame for it to work.  I use a 28mm as my main lens but I spend a good 90% of my time in dense forest so my distance to my subjects is only about 10m at the longest.  A stepladder and a 21mm or 25mm might be in my future.  When i am on top of a hill though I switch to the longest i am carrying -normally a 50mm or 90mm (the 50mm isn't really long enough but I try not to carry too much gear).  With the D800 I can then crop a bit.  The longer lens will lead to a tighter composition which leads to a much more cohesive photograph.

If you have an uncertainty about this, pick up a zoom that goes from 28-90 and shoot some scenes at both ends of the scale.

[Sunny Alan]

Hi Dave (Isle of Skye),
You are inspiring and catapulting those 'poor' 24-105ians (I am one ) to a respectful position, thanks.

I read many say 'shun kit-lenses like plague', and pouring abuse on this unpretending, humble, but 'silent performer' of the house of Canon... !
I too tried number of lenses, but not at home.
Correct, with careful focusing (manual live view best), it gives sharpness till infinity, with good color !
Both extreme may be little weak, but she gives what you need.
And lot of play in composition and many more....

Most of my landscapes are nearby 24....35, that is why looking for a specialised, more better lens, and heard of sure qualities of CZ flock.
Though I didnt touch a piece, Carl Zeiss is a name to be reckoned with, esp. with landscapes(I am an obsessive landscaper). World cannot biased altogether any way...

And Dave_Wyatt,
Yes, I too think cohesion, discern and grasp elements of a photo is very important from the viewer's point. Too wide is no helpful in 'this' regard, especially I catch to enlarge print them.
But isnt 90 too narrow? And isn't better use a 24, 35 or 50 instead of stitching two 90 shots? Please teach me those practical advantages of doing so, which I am not aware of...

I read Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM is one of best in sharpness, color and as a 'silent performer' like 24-105, good for naughty shots at it's wide end.

Any 'Oner's pride' affidavits please...

[Jeremy Roussak]

Treat yourself to the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - a much maligned lens on various fora on the net, but believe me it is a superb lens for landscape work.

I'm glad to hear you say that, Dave. I agree entirely: I think it's a good lens with a really useful range which for some reason (f4?) doesn't get the prominence it deserves.

Jeremy

[Dave_Wyatt]

And Dave_Wyatt,
But isn't 90 too narrow?

Not really, no

And isn't better use a 24, 35 or 50 instead of stitching two 90 shots?

I'm not referring to stitching, just shooting with a more narrow field of view, a tighter crop.  With a wide lens you will be forced to put something unnecessary in the foreground like a 'big boulder' and end up with the distant details too small.  However if you planned to print really big then yes, a longer lens and stitching would give you a larger file to work with.  I don't work this way as I photograph in forests a lot and trees move in the wind, making stitching almost impossible.  If I did stich, it would be after shooting at slightly different angles to enhance the perspective of the photo, much like Andreas Gursky does.

Please teach me those practical advantages of doing so, which I am not aware of...

I read Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM is one of best in sharpness, color and as a 'silent performer' like 24-105, good for naughty shots at it's wide end.

Any 'Oner's pride' affidavits please...

For the kind of landscape photography you are attempting, as long as the lens has a fairly flat field (little distortion) and is reasonably sharp in the corners at f8 to f/11, you'll be fine.  The 24-105 would be ok, but I would use an older manual focus lens with an adapter (and this is precisely what I do as it happens).  The reason for this is it makes you use live view to focus and slows you down.  A tripod and a manual focus lens will help more than anything else in terms of gear to make you become a better landscape photographer.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

A tripod and a manual focus lens will help more than anything else in terms of gear to make you become a better landscape photographer.

David, I could not agree with you more, I never use 'auto' anything or image stabilisation, I have everything turned off and have done so for many years now and do everything manually myself, settings, exposure, white balance the lot and I too always but always use a tripod. I seem to use my modern camera like some kind of very old and very basic camera from a long bygone era, but with a sensor instead of film and live view instead of ground glass, not because I am against all the modern gizmos or because I want to be old fashioned in my approach or my style, but I have arrived at this point simply because I want full and total control over every single aspect of every shot I take. If there is something wrong with the image when I am back at the computer, then I want it to be my fault or my lack of skill and not an incorrect selection of some automated camera settings, or down to what the engineer decided to select when he/she programmed the camera to average everything out to medium grey, in the back of a workshop somewhere in Japan several years earlier.

And you know what, it is far easier and faster and gets you far better results, if you take the plunge and make yourself do it this way. I don't know why so many people have such a fear of rotating that dial to 'M' and using their own brain as the main processing unit, instead of the tiny pre-programmed unthinking chip in the back of the camera - I once read somewhere when photographers of different skill levels were discussing what settings they thought they should use for various shooting scenarios, when an old hand chimed in and said something like, 'A' is for Atrocious, 'P' is for Pathetic and 'M' is for Magic..

Dave

[Paulowen]

Can't speak for the Zeiss but the 24mm TSEII is an amazing piece of glass and very versatile. Not only do you have the option of the 24mm focal length (or longer with an extender) but the shift facility can give you great panoramas (same fov as a 14mm I think).
Razor sharp too!

[NancyP]

Dave of Skye - I too like to go manual for landscape, and generally manual exposure for wildlife/birds/birds in flight. I learned in the manual days (first good camera was a 1969 Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000, its big innovation was choice between average and spot in-camera meter). This "auto exposure compensation" seems to take as much time as manual adjustment. However, you will have to pry autofocusing 400mm f/5.6L lens out of my cold hands - brilliant for birds in flight.

[Dave_Wyatt]

And you know what, it is far easier and faster and gets you far better results, if you take the plunge and make yourself do it this way. I don't know why so many people have such a fear of rotating that dial to 'M' and using their own brain as the main processing unit, instead of the tiny pre-programmed unthinking chip in the back of the camera - I once read somewhere when photographers of different skill levels were discussing what settings they thought they should use for various shooting scenarios, when an old hand chimed in and said something like, 'A' is for Atrocious, 'P' is for Pathetic and 'M' is for Magic..

Dave

I think this is key.  The more you turn off the functions that let the camera do the thinking for you, the quicker you will become a better photographer.  I honestly have no clue what my D800 can do in terms of all the various settings, just how to make sure it is on manual, shooting RAW, on the right ISO and use liveview with the histogram for metering (and turn it off again to compose).  Even with all of the technological advancements in cameras over the last decade, they are still just a black box, albeit with a sensor in now rather than film.

[sdwilsonsct]

Treat yourself to the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - a much maligned lens on various fora on the net, but believe me it is a superb lens for landscape work.

Yes! One lens that does a lot well.

[Sunny Alan]

Yes! One lens that does a lot well.

Initially when I started with 24-105 + 5d2, I thought this lens is great for all my landscape needs between 24-105.
But then the logical question arises: Why then other lenses in between the sizes, especially Canon themselves making many? And most of experts uses a lot many of lenses reaffirming, third party like Zeiss and special lenses like Tse are more equipped with more light, more color, sharpness, contrast etc. not in a big way, but sure.

If a lens eliminate labor (otherwise needed on Photoshop), justifies the additional investment.

But 24-105 is reliable multi-purpose, vfm, no doubt.

[Ken Bennett]

The 24-105 is a very nice lens for landscape and general purpose shooting. It's also quite the bargain these days.

However, as I happen to have the 24-105, and both versions of the 24-70, I have to say that the 24-70 version II is the best of the zooms, and rivals many prime lenses. Is it as good as a Zeiss prime? Probably not. But if I were going to carry one lens for landscape, that would be it. Maximum versatility and excellent image quality.

[sdwilsonsct]

But then the logical question arises: Why then other lenses in between the sizes, especially Canon themselves making many?

One reason: hiking in and camping at good locations, and other kinds of travel, can restrict the number of lenses at hand.

[Mjollnir]

I agree with G. Dan Mitchell:  there are no landscape lenses.

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2010/10/24/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-landscape-photography-lenses-part-i

[Sunny Alan]

I agree with G. Dan Mitchell:  there are no landscape lenses.

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2010/10/24/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-landscape-photography-lenses-part-i

I know G. Dan Mitchell, he is another Dave (Isle of Skye), who are battle-weary, thinks "anything is weapon for the born-warrior"...
They are correct too.