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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
