I'm taking a trip to Yellowstone and would like the "best" wide angle for landscapes. Assume money is not an issue with any of the 3 lenses I'm thinking about below, and assume this lens will go on a full frame sensor. I've read some glowing reports about the 24mm prime, but the "buzz" seemed to be about shooting indoors in low light. I don't shoot indoors, and have no desire to. I've owned the 24-105, which I liked, but isn't wide enough; I've owned the 17-40 which was a little soft in my opinion. I was thinking about the 24 prime, the 16-35 II, and the 17-55 2.8. I like the concept of the extra range of the 17-55, but I'm not sure its up to par with the other two, since it isn't a pro lens. I realize that I will only use this lens about 5% of the time based on what I typically shoot (birds), but there are some beautiful places where birds hang out, and when I shoot a landscape I want a photograph, not a picture.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I have 16-35II and it's an excellent lens. But since 17-55IS is one of your choice, that means you have a cropped body, right? Then, why not 10-22?? It is WIDE!!

Okay let me get this straight:

You don't think the 24-105 is wide enough. So that means the 24 prime is out right away... unless it is an inherently wider 24mm? The 17-55 2.8 is an EF-S lens I believe, so that won't work on a full frame sensor unless you're going to modify it.

So that leaves the 16-35 II. Problem solved.

Oh, the 17-40 is an excellent, sharp lens. You probably had a soft copy...

i use a tokina 12 - 24 which i like a lot more than canon's 10-22 because the construction is much better. IQ is basically the same (i find it very difficult to see a difference at 100%).
if money is no object check out the 14 2.8 lens that canon offers, i've heard good and bad, but ultimately you will have to make the choice to see if the good weighs out the bad.

cheers

Seeing that you shoot with the 1Ds.. why not try to find another copy of the 17-40, albeit sharper, like ontime mentioned?

Sadly for us, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is said to to be the best UWA lens. There is supposedly an adapter, but its too much money and hassle for me. I will stick with the 17-35mm f/2.8, lots of vignetting and distortion, and its not the sharpest.

I also have the 16-35mm mkII, its image quality is great.

Yeah the 16-35 II is excellent with beautiful contrast and color rendering. It is my top landscape lens.

The 17-55 is an EF-S lens, which won't work on your your cameras (unless you have an EF-S body that you didn't list in your profile).

I had no problems with the 2 copies of the 17-40L that I owned. I sold the first one, but purchased another one a few months later. Both copies were super sharp and it controls any flare issues very well. If you're not on a budget, why not the 16-35II?

Take a look through the alternate gear forum. If money is truly not an object, there are some amazing alternatives to the typical Canon/Sigma/Tokina lines, especially at wide angles. Just be sure to understand what you are giving up in the process.

Cheers,
James

Yeah, if money is truly no object, then the Contax Zeiss 21mm Distagon is about the best wide-angle lens ever made for 35mm format. It'll run you about $2700 from KEH.

Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, if money is truly no object, then the Contax Zeiss 21mm Distagon is about the best wide-angle lens ever made for 35mm format. It'll run you about $2700 from KEH.

Good luck finding the 21 distagon at KEH. Last one I saw was sold for 3000 on ebay.

To answer the op question it depends on how large of a print and how much detail you want in *the entire frame* . Some landscapes really just dont need tons of detail but if you are making 18x26 and up prints and want tons of detail out to the edges the distagon is the best. The 14-24 nikon is second best. I shot a cityscape from the top of a church with the 21 distagon at f5.6 handheld 1/320 of a second. I then set up the tripod and shot with the 16-35 set at 21mm at f10 and then f8 and time release+lens lockup. With web sized images or 8x10's either is fine. Go to 18x26 and that 16-35 looks very very fuzzy in the outer regions. Quite noticable with no pixel peeping required.
It all depends on your requirements. If you don't need the manual lenses and adaptors its alot of money and trouble for nothing. If you need the characteristics available with these lenses there is no alternative.

Thanks to all for excellent responses. Didn't remember that 17-55 was DX; thanks for reminding me. Sounds like the 16-35 is the way to go.

David

xrayvision wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, if money is truly no object, then the Contax Zeiss 21mm Distagon is about the best wide-angle lens ever made for 35mm format. It'll run you about $2700 from KEH.

Good luck finding the 21 distagon at KEH. Last one I saw was sold for 3000 on ebay.


Huh? They've got 3 right now. One for $2700, one for $2800, and one for $3000.

Edited by PrecisionPhoto on Mar 19, 2008 at 01:27 PM GMT

The primary advantage of the excellent 16-35mm f/2.8 lens is not its performance in landscape photography, at least not if you are typical and landscape implies shooting at smaller apertures. The 16-35 provides good quality at f/2.8, so get it if you need a good low light, indoor lens for shooting at f/2.8. However, the 17-40 equals (or perhaps exceeds, though not in a significant way) the performance of the 16-35 at smaller apertures... and at a much lower cost.

On FF you can shoot to f/16 without any significant (as in "visible in a large print") blur from diffraction. The 17-40 lens performs very well at these smaller apertures. In my view, it is much more useful on FF than on crop: you can shoot it at the smaller apertures and make the corner softness/vignetting issues that you might notice on a crop body go away.

Dan

Another option is the Sigma 12-24. Mine performs well on 5D.

DMW

I upgraded to the 16-35mm II lately, and the difference in the corners are enough to make it worth the price. Great lens.

PrecisionPhoto wrote:
The Canon 14mm II baby !


The 14 is a great lens, but it's pretty lousy when it comes to landscape photos. There are no filter possibilities, and zoom can be very handy when composing a landscape shot. If I could not use a polarizer (yes, even at that wide of an angle) or grads, I would be lost.

Ben Horne wrote:
PrecisionPhoto wrote:
The Canon 14mm II baby !


The 14 is a great lens, but it's pretty lousy when it comes to landscape photos. There are no filter possibilities, and zoom can be very handy when composing a landscape shot. If I could not use a polarizer (yes, even at that wide of an angle) or grads, I would be lost.

Sorry don't agree

hey Precisionphoto, can you post some more shots with the 14?

Another vote for 17-40 especially for a FF body.., the colors are just amazing!

The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review

The Nikon 14-24 looks awfully good. Zeiss 21's do show up now and then. 16-35II is a respected performer. OM 21/3.5 gets good reviews. 17-40 isn't quite as good as most of the above, but a bargain at $600.

Another really fun and useful lens for landscapes is a 24mm shift lens. Best of these is the Oly 24/3.5.

Oh - I forgot - I have one listed on the B&S board.... (sorry - a shameless self plug - but it really is a wonderful landscape lens. 24mm straight, about 20mm with one shift, about 16mm with 2 shifts. Great optics.)

bobbytan wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review




I shot this lens on a D3 over the weekend with full anticipation that I would want to sell all my canon gear in anticipation that the D3X will make me switch to Nikon. It is an awesome lens, don't get me wrong, but I thought the CA was much stronger than on my 16-35mm II, and it did not seem to be as symmetrical as it is on my 16-35mm. If you correct the edges, the center might not be correct now. It's just by a little, but I can fully fix the CA on my 16-35mm. I really haven't had any complaints about the 16-35mm II's corner sharpness on full frame. It is a beautiful lens, but it is also overhyped a bit at the moment.

After doing some landscape shooting this weekend, I can't say enough how important the polarizer is. It helped to make several shots for me, even on the 16-35mm at full wide.

Edited by Ben Horne on Mar 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM GMT