Full Frame Landscaping Lens Advice

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

Im after a bit of lens advice from those of you who may have used them on Full frame cameras. I have an EOS 5d MkI.

I find my 24-105mm a great walkabout lens... but its limiting at 24mm for some landscapes.

My first thought was the 17-40mm L series... but I've seen mixed reviews on it. I've since thought that the 16-35mm L series would be better but its obviously a huge expense which im prepared to pay if it is indeed the best option... I just think its maybe a step too much for me as although a keen amature. Is it so much better that someone who prints to a max of a4 would actually notice? Also I had a 15-35mm sigma a long time ago for a similar purpose and I always found myself wishing it turned a bit more at the longer end. I think the 17-40mm would be a bit more user friendly and cause less lens changing....

But then I go back to why I want the lens... I want something wider than 24mm... but actually I often found the 15-20mm section of my sigma produced wild distortion effects I did not like in print... so should I forget a zoom completely and go for the 20mm prime? Would that not actually give me the best ballance of what I want, IQ and cost?

I've never seen much talk of the 20mm canon prime on here... good or not?

M
 
I have a Sigma 20mm f1.8 that I'm really happy with. I also have a Sigma 12-24mm which I'm really happy with. Maybe you could consider these?

On my film SLR I have a Canon 20-35mm which I bought used from FFrordes and I'm happy with it. It's compact and has USM and seems to work just fine. I've read on line that it's cheapo rubbish and that it tends to distort but I've not had any issue at all with it and I'm happy with the compactness, lightness, USM and picture quality. It seems fine on my 20D too.
 
woof woof said:
I have a Sigma 20mm f1.8 that I'm really happy with. I also have a Sigma 12-24mm which I'm really happy with. Maybe you could consider these?

On my film SLR I have a Canon 20-35mm which I bought used from FFrordes and I'm happy with it. It's compact and has USM and seems to work just fine. I've read on line that it's cheapo rubbish and that it tends to distort but I've not had any issue at all with it and I'm happy with the compactness, lightness, USM and picture quality. It seems fine on my 20D too.
Click to expand...

I think if I went with a zoom i'd want at least a 15-35mm range covered... which is actually why the 17-40 L appeals! But a bit of me says that I want this lens for the one thing which is the big landscape shot set up with tripod etc... and not for walkabout landscape/ travel work for which I am happy with my 24-105mm. So maybe this is why I think the prime is a good option!

I've read about the sigma a bit just now... well looked at it on WE and the reviews say its soft!
 
I don't know what "WE" is but if they say it's soft (I assume that you mean the 12-24mm, the 20mm is sharp, a great prime lens IMVHO) I suppose that you have to consider that, but I have no problem with any of my Sigma lenses.
 
what bad reviews have you read about the 17-40 L? I've only ever heard praise for it. The 16-35 is a massive premium for F2.8, which in landscape photography is probably not much use at all!

the 12-24 is a good lens, but only if you can find a solid copy. Theres so many soft ones floating around. I tried one on a 5D MKII in Jessops and the soft corners are that much worse on FF.
 
I can't say anything bad about my 17-40L for landscapes. I use it on my 5D mk1 and mk2 and its awesome. I would however say that I hardly ever use it below 24mm. For me 24mm is perfect for the majority of landscapes and I find all too often landscapes are shot too wide for no good reason.

There's only one lens I would give up the 17-40 for and thats the 24mm 1.4. This is more to do with the difference in speed and thinner DOF when photographing people though. IMO the 17-40L is a stunning landscape lens.

Andy.
 
I think the reviews Mark is talking about mention that the 17-40 has quite significant barrel /pincushion distortion. Saying that Mark: you're also shooting a 5D with 24-105 but that's all I use for landscapes! I agree sometimes it would be nice to go wider but I'm holding off a 17-40 until I can say I've made the most of 24-105. In either case, once you're there I think the 17-40 is the way to go. A 16-35 would be nice but if you don't have the money to spare and don't need f/2.8 (which you're probably not going to for landscapes) then I'd stick to a 17-40 :)

Edit: Canon also make a 14mm L which is near distortion-less but that costs a BOMB!
 
I wonder how many of the duff Sigmas have come from Jessops? And how many of them are actually the same lens that's been passed from branch to branch...

If the OP wants to go VERY wide, the 12-24 Siggy is pretty much the only FF option (apart from the Nikon 14-24 which would be tricky to fit to his 5D) and good copies do exist!
 
I'm sure that I read somewhere that people are using the Nikon 14-24mm on Canon bodies as it's so good. If that's true there must be an adapter about. I love my Siggy 12-24mm.
 
There does exist an adapter to mount the Nikon 14-24mm onto an EOS.

When I was shooting landscapes on a 5D mk1, I found the 17-40L to be a very good performer and I usually shot at the wider end.
 
Both the 17-40 and 24-105 suffer from barrel distortion at the wide end, which you will notice particularly when shooting at the seaside.

What I do is use the 17-40 in the 24mm - 35mm region, (rather than the 24-105), as it gives a flatter horizon.

I very rarely need 17mm - 24mm unless in a very enclosed space - indoors for example. Out in the landscape I find those focal lengths just too wide. Too much space to fill!
 
Thanks all... It's looking like the 17-40mm is the best choice... but it interests me that no one has praised or even mentioned the canon 20mm prime... It really for some reason apeals to me rather than a zoom... but I dont know!

I guess like someone has said the 24-105mm is actually great as it is for landscapes... so I really only want that one step wider than 24mm... and I feel the 17-20mm section may just be that little bit too much!

Any users of the 20mm out there.... the canon one?
 
jerry12953 said:
Both the 17-40 and 24-105 suffer from barrel distortion at the wide end, which you will notice particularly when shooting at the seaside.
Click to expand...

24-70mm is bad enough at 24mm. On the other hand Tokina 12-24mm produces a perfectly flat horizon and works well at 18-24mm.
 
markelliot said:
Thanks all... It's looking like the 17-40mm is the best choice... but it interests me that no one has praised or even mentioned the canon 20mm prime... It really for some reason apeals to me rather than a zoom... but I dont know!

I guess like someone has said the 24-105mm is actually great as it is for landscapes... so I really only want that one step wider than 24mm... and I feel the 17-20mm section may just be that little bit too much!

Any users of the 20mm out there.... the canon one?
Click to expand...

I don't know what type of landscapes you like to shoot, but any distortion that the 17-40L might have was not an important factor for me at all since I prefer to shoot landscapes with a lumpier horizon ;) I also prefer shooting wider than 24mm and am often at the 14mm end of my Nikon 14-24mm.

Personally, if I were in your shoes I'd rather have the option of shooting between 17-19mm and also from 21-40mm as well as 20mm all in the one lens.

Distortion... Soft corners... I had a 17-40L to shoot photos I had a passion for not to dissect their straight lines under a microscope. If you shoot a great image then you shoot a great image. (y)

If I had chosen a different path and stuck with Canon then I'd still own a 17-40L.
 
markelliot said:
Thanks all... It's looking like the 17-40mm is the best choice... but it interests me that no one has praised or even mentioned the canon 20mm prime... It really for some reason apeals to me rather than a zoom... but I dont know!

I guess like someone has said the 24-105mm is actually great as it is for landscapes... so I really only want that one step wider than 24mm... and I feel the 17-20mm section may just be that little bit too much!

Any users of the 20mm out there.... the canon one?
Click to expand...

17-40L is a fantastic super-wide on full frame. Apart from f/2.8 obviously, I would rate it as better overall optically than the 16-35L, especially for flare control. And it's great value for an L.

You'll only notice the distortion (which all super-wides have) shooting seascapes or buildings and it is easily fixed in post processing. Canon's free DPP software does it for you in a mouse click.

The reason nobody has mentioned the 20mm is probably because most folks just go for the 17-40L!
 
DigitalRelish said:
I don't know what type of landscapes you like to shoot, but any distortion that the 17-40L might have was not an important factor for me at all since I prefer to shoot landscapes with a lumpier horizon ;) I also prefer shooting wider than 24mm and am often at the 14mm end of my Nikon 14-24mm.

Personally, if I were in your shoes I'd rather have the option of shooting between 17-19mm and also from 21-40mm as well as 20mm all in the one lens.

Distortion... Soft corners... I had a 17-40L to shoot photos I had a passion for not to dissect their straight lines under a microscope. If you shoot a great image then you shoot a great image. (y)

If I had chosen a different path and stuck with Canon then I'd still own a 17-40L.
Click to expand...

It's not about disecting straight lines under a microscope....rather that one KNOWS the horizon is flat, and I'd prefer it if it appeared flat in my pictures!

As stated both the 17-40 and 24-105 zooms show barrel distortion at the wide end. There's not a lot you can do it about it at the widest focal lengths, but if it matters, one can use the 17-40 in the focal lengths where the 24-105 has weaknesses.

I note that the 24-70 has the same problem....I had wondered if that was the case.(y)
 
I have a 5d MK1 and I have a Canon 16-35, which is a great lens but I tend to use it in town when I want to get a whole building or for large groups of people. Not used it much for landscape as was not getting what i wanted, I reckon my best landscape Lens was 10-20 sigma on a cropped sensor. I use a 24-105 for landscape on the 5d MK1.
 
markelliot said:
I think if I went with a zoom i'd want at least a 15-35mm range covered... which is actually why the 17-40 L appeals!
Click to expand...

There is a fair bit of difference between 15 and 17 MM, btw.

The 17-40 apparently controls flare better than the 16-35. Do you really want to pay double + for an extra stop (because that is really all the 16-35 offers) when landscapes rarely see wide open aperture use anyway???



HoppyUK said:
You'll only notice the distortion (which all super-wides have) shooting seascapes or buildings and it is easily fixed in post processing. Canon's free DPP software does it for you in a mouse click.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about barrel distortion or perspective distortion?
 
trencheel303 said:
<snip>

Are you talking about barrel distortion or perspective distortion?
Click to expand...

Barrel distortion. Theres nowt you can do about perspective effects, which is all part of using a wide-angle. It's not really distortion as such, it's not a lens effect - it's a function of close shooting distance. Call it 'exagerated perspective' :)
 
I wouldnt count barrel distortion or pincushion as a disadvantage on wide lenses, as the two are very difficult/expensive to separate. Also as HoppyUK mentioned, the distortion can be very easily corrected. Im sure theres people out that shoot landscapes with fisheye lenses and use software to straighten the verticals, and that is a very extreme example.
 
HoppyUK said:
Barrel distortion. Theres nowt you can do about perspective effects, which is all part of using a wide-angle. It's not really distortion as such, it's not a lens effect - it's a function of close shooting distance. Call it 'exagerated perspective' :)
Click to expand...

Indeed - was just checking as so many people seem to confuse barrel and perspective distortion.
 
And still no one praises the 20mm... Is it a canon lens with no fans???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top