Next landscape lens?

[danm]

Hello,


I've got a 5dII, 16-35mm and 24-105mm, with polarizers, flashes, Gitzo, etc. What would be a good next lens, especially for landscape? I'm thinking of either the new 70-200 f/2.8 coming out, or the 24mm TS-E, and leaning heavily towards the TS-E.The 70-200 would be more general purpose, but I already have a lens with some reach, and I'd like a fully manual lens. I somewhat miss the days with my Canon AE-1 where I had to set everything on the lens manually, it added to the experience (but I missed more photos).


Or other suggestions? I'd like to try wildlife too someday. I also have a wedding to go to this year probably, so the 70-200 would be nice for that. On the other hand, the other day I had the chance to spend some good time with a 70-200 f/2.8 mkI and 70-200 f/4 IS. I thought I was a he-man, but the f/2.8 is so dang heavy. Found myself a little annoyed with the weight - but it is a gorgeous lens.


Thanks!

[Jordan]

I think the ultimate landscape lens IS the 16-35 which you already have. I suppose next would be......... the 14mm f/2.8 L USM. Have you used this sexy bad-boy yet?! It's great! As far as setting things manually... plus added panorama options, the TS-Es would be nice. I have used the 17mm TS and it's GREAT! That's all I can comment on the subject.... oh yeah... and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM is SWEET! I don't have one because I'm waiting for the new one to come out, but I've rented it several times and wish I had one!








- Jordan Murphy


www.freshphotohawaii.com


Equipment: Canon 7D, 50D, EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM, EF 100-400, Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, Kenko extension tube 3pc set, 2 430EXII Speedlites, Manfrotto monopod and tripod with video pan head.

[clemmb]

Hello,


The 70-200 would be more general purpose,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Some of the best landscapes I have seen were shot with a 200mm. Get the 70-200.


Mark

[Bombsight]

Wanna sell that 16-35?[:P]

[ShutterbugJohan]

For landscapes, why not the 70-200/4L IS?

[Jordan]

Okay... I just got the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and I have to say, it's INSANELY sharp.... sharper than the 16-35 I think... certainly not any worse. Now being 2.8 it is fast but... with only a 5mm zoom range - it may as well be a prime. I still like it! :)

[danm]

I have a full frame 5DII

[Keith B]

I find the 16-35II to be very sharp 16-24 or so. 35mm not so much, but a great landscape lens none the less.


I'd say get the 70-200 next unless you are doing architectural landscapes then I'd suggest TS-E.

[danm]

Given the lenses I have - 16-35II and 24-105mm, I'm beginning to think that the next best lens for a landscape/nature kit is ....


Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Telephoto/Macro


Why? The other lenses cover the low to middle range, but the other two extremes when out in nature - ultra close macro and telephoto are covered by this lens. What I would carry around on a nature hike would be the 5dII/16-35mm, and the 180mm on a Rebel body, with the 24-105 handy when general purpose shooting is warranted.





Thoughts?

[crosbyharbison]

I'd go with the 17mm TS-E

[Daniel Browning]

180mm Macro is not a bad choice at all. However, for me, personally, I find that a zoom is more useful for landscapes. For that, I'm usually shooting deep DOF, which means I don't need to worry about bokeh or performance at fast apertures, which is what primes are good at. But I do want flexibility in composition -- it's often very hard or impossible to move closer or farther away for telephoto landscape shots - and it might ruin perspective if I did. So I use the 70-200 f/4 L IS. But if you wanted even more flexibility, you might consider the 100-400, which is great for extreme perspective compression. (It can be very hard or impossible to get the DOF deep enough at 400mm, though -- and you want to hide that ugly bokeh.)


But the 180mm may be a better choice for you.