Landscape Lens for Canon 5d Mark ii

<p>I'm looking to buy a landscape lens for a Canon 5d Mark ii. Money is no option. I'm looking for a sharp lens. No longer than 300mm.</p>

<p><strong>Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens for Canon EF Mount EOS DSLR Cameras</strong><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=655184&Q=&is=REG&A=details">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=655184&Q=&is=REG&A=details</a></p>

<p>70-200mm f4 IS. Sharp, light, versatile. And then the Zeiss 21mm which I had with my 5DII.</p>

<p>300mm is is no way a landscape lens, you should be looking at lenses <= 35mm! The 17-40 is small, lightweight, and takes the standard 77mm filter threads. The 16-35 is more expensive, faster, but takes the much more expensive 82mm filters.<br>

I would reccomend the 17-40, mainly because the commonality of the 77mm filters with most other L series lenses. It's also a great lens, and for landscape the loss of one stop of light (versus the 16-35) is not much of an issue.</p>

<p>300mm can be a landscape lens, why not? I've shot a landscape photo with 500mm on APS-C... it just depends on what you prefer.<br>

Since you're typically on a tripod, with f/8-f/16 apertures, in fact any lens can do the trick, as nearly all lenses tend to be sharp enough in that range. So the main thing to determine is the focal length you need and prefer, and then narrow down your search. Most people might prefer wide® angles, but it's by no means the only way for landscapes. In fact, the 24-105 f/4 would be a range I'd prefer. Only you can tell what you'd prefer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Money is no option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry to say, but lenses aren't free ;-)</p>

<p>There are so many sharp lenses, primes and zooms, between 8mm and 300mm. I'd suggest narrowing down the range a bit, unless you meant 30mm?</p>

<p>I also recommend the 17-40mm f/4L. I love mine.</p>

<p>If money was no option, I would own every Canon lens made.</p>

<p>There is no such thing as a "landscape lens" - do you mean a wide-angle? I feel your question is too general to be useful. What lenses do you have now? Whatever you have at present can be a landscape lens if you take landscapes with it.</p>

<p>If you don't know what focal length you want from a range of 8mm to 300mm then you may as well give up photography. Just about any lens can be used for landscape work. Decide what you want and buy it.</p>

<p>You'll want a lens that sharp across the frame. If you want a wide angle prime, the Canon TS-E II's are reknowned for across-the-frame sharpness, as is the Zeiss Distagon 21mm.</p>

<p>However, I agree with those who say that landscape shooting need not be confined to wider angles. I've use a range of 24mm to 200mm for landscapes on my full frame and crop bodies.</p>

<p>I shoot landscape and all buy one of my nine lenses fit your "less than 300mm" requirement and they all produce sharp images. (I use a focal range from 17mm to 400mm for landscape work.)</p>

<p>I think you need to narrow your question a bit.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>If you're shooting landscapes, and if you want everything in focus (as with most landscape photography), then you'll be shooting at a smaller aperture on a tripod (maybe f/8 to f/16). Most lenses are quite sharp at smaller apertures. Chromatic aberration (CA) might be the bigger factor you need to consider.</p>

<p>I also agree with Wouter about focal lengths. Although I've not shot a landscape at 500mm on an APS-C, I've gone as long as 300mm on an APS-C and as wide as a diagonal fisheye on a full frame -- and everywhere inbetween. If you don't know the focal length you want/need, I would suggest buying a zoom or two. Yes, primes are sharper, but not so much at smaller apertures. I would also suggest f/4 zooms, because they are slightly better optimized for smaller apertures than f/2.8 zooms. At f/8, the 17-40/4L is a very nice lens, as is the 24-105/4L. The 70-200/4L lenses are among the best, but admittedly relatively fewer landscapes are taken towards the tele end.</p>

<p>If you are dead-set on the sharpest lenses available, hang the cost, buy a bag of assorted Zeiss manual focus primes. However, you're really not going to see much of an advantage at smaller apertures. In fact a good tripod will be your sharpest lens.</p>

<p>Well, it depends. If you want to isolate a small segment of a distant landscape, then try the Canon EF 100-400L telephoto. Images are sharp and contrasty. Need more isolation? Try it with the 1.4X TC.</p>

<p>On the other end of the range there's the Sigma 12-24 aspheric (very good, but watch out for important picture elements in the corners (they can sometimes resemble flat cardboard cutouts). My Canon 17-40L is very sharp and gets a lot of use. If I want to do a quick-change maneuver and go from landscape stills to chasing the grandkids around using video, the 24-105L is wicked sharp and covers a useful range of focal lengths.</p>

<p>If I want soft-focus, the SMC Pentax 67 120mm soft fits also.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>300mm is is no way a landscape lens, you should be looking at lenses <= 35mm!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The EF 300 4L USM was my fav landscape lens for many years. EOS A2, EF 300 F4L USM, Bogan Tripod, Fujichrome 100:</p>

<p><img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/ala_moana_images/runner_at_sunset.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="636" /></p>

If money is no option, I'd get either the 17mm or 24mm t/s.

<p>I would recommend, with zero hesitation the 16-35 II L, or the 24L, or 35L. For a zoom or fixed in that range there is no better lens, not even close.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>16-35mm</p>

<p>any canon lens with a red circle</p>

<p>Ross</p>

<p>If you're not certain about what you actually want, you could hardly do better for starters than to get the EF 24-105mm IS L lens - goes from wide angle to short telephoto. It's an L lens with all that that implies in terms of quality.</p>

 

<p>Another vote for the 24mm TS-E II for the 5D II. No Canon lens in this focal length will be sharper.</p>

<p>I use a few lenses for landscape work. I use the 17-40, 50 1.8, and 70-200 f4 IS. I think you will find that not just one lens will cover all the possibilities in landscape work. If you are looking for one lens, then I would suggest the 17-40 if price is a concern. This is a great lens stopped down. I have a 5D MK I, and love that lens, but then it depends on your style of shooting (wide vs telephoto). If I could only have two lenses, I would go for the 17-40 and 70-200 (f4 or f2.8). I had these two lenses initially, and they served me very well for landscape and portrait work. I have begun collecting primes as they are sharper in general, and you can shoot more open to blur backgrounds in portrait work, especially with full frame. Good luck.</p>

<p>I presume that you mean that "Money is no object."</p>

<p>I like the EF 24mm f/1.4 Mark II. Longer primes work, too, but there is really something special about this lens. They tell me that the tilt-shifts are better, but this one is quite good.</p>

<p>It's on sale through February 4 at B&H.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>OK, I'm going to take the bait. First, if you really have no idea which specific focal lengths or specific lenses you want already, I'm going to bet that you are new to this. With that in mind, I'll also guess that when you write about sharpness, this may be more of a abstraction than something that you have a lot of experience with. As well, I'll presume that you might listen to me when I say that just because you are willing to spend a lot of money (is that what you meant by "no option?") that doing so may not help you at all. I'm also guessing - again based on the apparent background experience - that you don't already make very large "gallery quality" prints, and that you are most likely to share photographs electronically.</p>

<p>My best wild guess is that you would be quite happy with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS as a primary lens. I do a lot of landscape photography, and I often regard this as my core lens. It covers a range from quite decently wide to decently long. It is quite "sharp" enough to produce rather large prints. You are unlikely to benefit from a larger maximum aperture for landscape work. The potential increased sharpness from primes (which may be smaller than you imagine) is accompanied by several downsides, including lack of flexibility. (I shoot both primes and zooms.)</p>

<p>With this one lens, you could get started. By getting started and making a lot of photographs you will begin to better understand what you actually need in additional lenses, if you need them at all. There is no such thing as a "landscape lens" per se. A huge range of different lenses are used to do landscape photography. While one photographer may tell you that she absolutely prefers to shoot with ultra wide lenses, another will tell you that his favorite landscape lens is a telephoto. Most of what you'll get, beyond the general recommendation, is less about the objective value of the lenses and more about the wildly varying personal preferences of those posting the advice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>For years my primary landscape lens was a 17mm, then I went wider to 14mm, and now I can't say enough about the Canon EF 17 TS-E. Not only can I correct perspective when I want to place the horizon close to the edge of the frame, but I can now also easily stitch images to create an even wider view with the image quality of a medium format digital back. My second landscape lens is an 8mm circular fisheye which is a true challenge to use well.</p>