I suppose my current favorite is the 24/3.5 TS-E II, but unless I'm shooting for a particular subject and just one approach to it, I always want to have at least two lenses, and preferably three with me. For example, 16-35, 24 TS-E, 70-200/4. Or 17 TS-E, 24-105, 100-400. I know Dan Mitchell has lots of examples shot with a 70-200, and I recall a few with 100-400. I sometimes find myself making more shots with one of those than with an ultra wide, depending upon the details and shape of the landscape.
A good lightweight combo with your 17-40 would be to pair it with a 70-200/4. Wider shots can be done by stitching. Playing with a zoom into the telephoto range can bring out interesting ways of seeing. If you get the bug for a tilt-shift and can budget for it, I'd suggest starting with the 24.
jcolwell wrote:
I thionk the TS-E 24/3.5L II is better than the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE. That's why I sold the ZE. Later, I picked up the 18/3.5 ZE, because Zeiss is neiss.
That's gneiss, unlike my posts, which are usually built on a bedrock of (Manhattan) schist.
jcolwell wrote:
I thionk the TS-E 24/3.5L II is better than the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE. That's why I sold the ZE. Later, I picked up the 18/3.5 ZE, because Zeiss is neiss.
Photon wrote:
That's gneiss, unlike my posts, which are usually built on a bedrock of (Manhattan) schist.
Oddly enough for me it's a TS-E 24/3.5L II and a 400mm f/5.6L. The TSE speaks for itself, I think, but I'm surprised at how many people think one must only use a UWA or WA on the landscape. Dan Mitchell's tirade mentioned above is excellent on the subject. (Thanks for posting it, Dan.)
Having noted the above I've also used a 16-35, a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and a 24-70 f/2.8 (and probably every other lens in my arsenal). Other than extreme Macro work (and maybe some architectural shooting) I can't think of any subject that dictates the lens. Depends on where you look. More important, it depends on what you see.
Greg Campbell wrote:
I recommend you save the 'upgrade' money and spend it on a trip to someplace like Yellowstone, Antarctica, Utah, or wherever you want to go...
The Landscape photography genre is, more than most, extremely dependent on the photographer. IMO, 90% of the effort required to produce a good image takes place before the shutter is even pressed. Assuming your camera and lens are functional and not outright junk, you're good to go. Pixel peepers and gear dweebs seldom make compelling images.
17-40 is my only dedicated landscape lens after, in a moment of derangement, I sold an Oly-Zuiko 18/3.5. The 17's soft corners are easily accounted for while composing.
chez wrote:
Nice...but the thread is about your favorite landscape lens. Please stay on topic or just don't post.
OP titled the thread with a question, but clearly stated a potential upgrade consideration and asked for recommendations, to which this sound advice was provided. Calling people out for your perceived slights is even less on topic (yes, I'm aware of the irony of this).
I have no single favorite, and shoot landscapes both with wide angle and telephoto lenses.
I do, however, really like the look I get from my C/Y Zeiss 28/2.8 Distagon and from the
C/Y Zeiss 35-70/3.4 Vario-Sonnar. For tele landscapes my 135/2L has served me well, as
have Canon 70-200 zooms. The Canon 16-35 (mkI in my case) has very nice color performance,
but has marginal edge sharpness. For images that don't get printed large, it's still quite nice.
Can't decide because it depends on what I'm shooting. I love my 16-35 f/2.8 II, and I use this most often when out night shooting. But ever since I went full frame my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II has been getting a lot more use in landscapes.
The tipping point for me going to the 16-35 instead of the 17-40 was really just for night shooting. I don't use the 2.8 for landscape usually. So if you are looking in this range and want to night shoot, than I would say go for the 16-35. If not, I would see no problem in saving some cash and getting the 17-40.
Everybody is loving on the TS, man I would love to add one to my arsenal at some point.
I'm just curious how you utilize shooting at 2.8 plays in your nighttime landscape photography.
Having 2.8 vs 4 just lets that much more light in. Allowing for more stars without having to sacrifice ISO and quality. Unless I was to buy a star tracker to allow for longer exposures, there is only so long you can expose for before getting star trails.
