Recommend a landscape lens for a 1d2

[ben_cops]

<p>Hi all<br>

I'm sorry if this has been asked a 1000 times but I'd like your thoughts on a lanscape lens for a 1d mark 2. Obviously I'm drawn to the 17-40 but from what I can tell the variation between copies is large and they can be bad. I'm thinking of the 24-105L but not sure its wide enough. I'm about to go on a photographic holiday in Morocco and eagerly anticipating the landscape opportunities.</p>

<p>Is there a non-canon lens I'm missing here or is the 17-40 or 24-105 what I'm after? I have a bunch of primes at the moment, the widest of which is the 35 1.4L which is fantastic but probably not wide enough and also not playing to its strengths as a landscape lens. Oh I have the sigma 12-24 too but its so awful I wouldn't use it except for fun with the extreme wide angle at 12mm.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

<p>Ben</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I have the Canon 17-40L and use it a lot for landscapes. Mine is a good lens with some room for improvement. (Which could be the description of most wide angle lenses) Generally it produces good quality sharp images. I have not heard reports of much variation between copies but I may be mistaken. It is certainly the best value high quality zoom for these focal lengths. I think the Canon 17-40L would be my first recommendation. The Canon 16-35 II is supposed to be a bit better but of course costs a lot more.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Ben, why not get a 17-40 <em>and</em> a 24-105? On a 1D2, that would give you a focal length range of approximately 24-135mm, which would be good, I think, for North African landscapes.</p>

[jim_simon3]

<p>I have the same camera and I use the 17-40. I find that stopping it down makes the problems go away. I think the stop a third under f8 is where everything starts to get nice<br>

Jim S</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Consider the 24-70 also, very nice on full frame.</p>

[bueh]

<p>You can mount third-party lenses that are for the APS-C bodies. I would give the Tokina AT-X (12-24, 11-16) a try and see when vignetting disappears and edge performance is acceptable for you and your camera (I am pretty sure this is no big issue when zoomed in a bit). There is also a Tamron 14mm and several very good, inexpensive Tokina AT-X 17mm primes.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I shoot mostly landscapes.<br>

The lens I carry on my camera by default is the 24-105L F4 IS USM It covers about 85% of my needs.<br>

My other lens is a 16-35L F2.8 USM for the rest.</p>

[stillbound]

<p>i used the older 16-35 when i had a 1D2 (not a full frame by the way to the guys above) and it was great - maybe not super wide but i got very proficent at stitching when i really wanted to add extra breadth to my images...<br>

The 17-40 would be my choice now though as I also use the 35 1.4 on a 5D2 and don't shoot that much landscape...<br>

From what i've seen out of the lens it is an excellent value...</p>

<p>Stark-Arts</p>

[steve_crist]

<p><em>"You can mount third-party lenses that are for the APS-C bodies."</em><br>

Are you sure about that? I have a 1D3 and don't believe the EFS style lenses will fit. Anyway I have the 17-40 and it works great with my camera.</p>

 

[jason_thurman]

<p>EF-S lenses are made differently than some Tamron and Sigma lenses. Canon EF-S lenses have the black protrusion in the back making it impossible to mount them on full frame and 1.3x sensor camera. However, Tamron and Sigma lenses do not have the protrusion, they look like a regular EF lens, although the image circle projected will still be smaller for the APS-C sensors. There may be some vignetting.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you sure about that? I have a 1D3 and don't believe the EFS style lenses will fit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am pretty sure. The third party manufacturers' lenses are not EF-S but regular EF, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, I don't have my Tokina 12-24mm at hand, or I would try it now. However, it is true that Canon EF-S lenses won't mount on 1.3× and full-frame bodies.<br>

Edit: Ah, Jason already answered this.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Ditto Jason and Bueh. <em><strong>EF-S</strong></em> in this regard is <em><strong>specific </strong></em>to the lens <em><strong>mount, </strong></em>and the camera's ability to accept (or not) the EF-S mount. <br>

***<br>

Also, in case it is relevant: <em><strong>EF-S</strong></em> is <em><strong>NOT</strong></em> totally sensor size specific. For example, APS-C Canon EOS cameras, Model <em><strong>10D and all before</strong></em>, will <em><strong>NOT</strong></em> mate with an EF-S lens. <br>

***<br>

I am very confident all Tamron (<em><strong>Di-II</strong></em>) and Sigma ("<em><strong>DC</strong></em>") have an <strong ><em >EF</em></strong> style mount, and thus will mate, but may vignette with all APS-H and 135 format cameras. I believe the Tokina Range of lenses with an APS-C image circle, are the same. <br>

<br>

If anyone knows of an anomaly in the groups I mentioned, I would appreciate being advised<br>

Thanks,<br>

WW <br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>To the landscape bit:<br>

<strong><em>"Is there a non-canon lens I'm missing here</em></strong><br>

Looking for a possible vignette would drive me nuts, so I would no go that path . . . but YMMV.<br>

The Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM (now discontinued) had a good reputation, I have not owned one, but have seen its work.<br>

The Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG ASPHERICAL is also discontinued and might be worth investigation, I don't know anything about this lens.<br>

The Tamron SP AF17-35mm F/2.8–4 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) ? ? ? I know nothing, just mentioning it.<br>

***<br>

I have a 5D and on it, for landscapes, I use a 16 to 35, or a 24, or a 35, or sometimes a 50 – but I did not buy any of those lenses as “Landscape Lenses” specifically – I bought them all for their speed, and subsequently, I use them to capture some landscape pictures as I require.<br>

<br>

Like Colin, I have not heard directly of all these problems with the 17 to 40F/4L and I think that is a very good choice for landscape work and good value for money, considering that vary rarely more than F4 of lens speed is required for assiduous Landscape capture: though I really have used (and needed) my 24 at F1.4 for landscapes I have captured. <br>

<br>

On another note, for my liking an equivalent 22mm FoV (in 135 format) is just not wide enough for landscapes, and that would be the sticking point for me. <br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > <br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>The silly answer is of course: any lens. You can shoot landscapes with a 400mm if you want to pick out a nice detail.</p>

<p>However I think you're implying that you need a wide angle lens. The ebove mentioned alternatives are pretty spot on. One option that's not mentioned is lenses with different mounts. I've read time and again that the Nikon ultra wide zoom <strong>14-24mm f/2.8 AFS </strong> is super duper.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.<br /> </p>

[ben_cops]

<p>Thanks all for your responses. Mark I like your style! That's all the stimulus I need to buy <em>both</em> lenses. <br>

So in summary, there doesn't really seem to be a real alternative to the canons, but the canons are ok?</p>

[ben_cops]

<p>And I'm not buying a nikon lens :)</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Ben, if you'd like to go manual focus (which works well for landscapes), there are several older Zeiss lenses that give exceptional image quality for relatively little money. These include the Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4, the Zeiss Jenna Sonnar 135/4 or 135/3.5 (the f/4 lens is better but very rare), and the Zeiss Jenna Sonnar 180/2.8. (I don't have any experience with Zeiss wides, but I'm sure there are some that are very good).</p>

<p>The drawback for me is that my copy of each of these lenses requires a different EOS adapter. An advantage, though, is that I can also use the 135/4 and 180/2.8 on my FD bodies (with an M42/FD adapter).</p>

<p>It's reassuring to hear that you're not buying a Nikon (although Nikon manual focus lenses reportedly give excellent results on EOS bodies). Of course I'm joking, as were you. I'm a firm believer that it's quite arbitrary whether a person decides to buy into the Nikon or the Canon system.</p>

<p>Photographic art is made by the photographer, not the gear.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>the 17-40 and 24-105 will work great and provide a good range, these are my 2 lens's of choice for lanscape, both when i was shooting a crop camera and now with FF.<br>

Ross</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>No complaints about my 17-40. I like this lens very much, and I've not heard of any significant quality control problems. It's a bit soft in the corners wide open, but that's the nature of the design. Stopped down, the lens is beautifully sharp and contrasty. An added benefit to this lens is has moisture seals and zooms and focuses internally (at least if you have a filter on the front), so it doesn't draw air in and out of the camera body. This becomes really important if you do photography when dew is forming or in the fog.</p>

<p>I also love my 24-105, but it's an air blower/sucker, with its telescoping barrel.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Hi Ben, I have the 17-40 on a 5D and have no problems. If you want convincing go to www.timecatcher.com and look at some of their work. Those who use Canon on that site do most of their work with the 17-40 and I would love to have shots that good!</p>

[ben_cops]

<p>Ah yes<br>

<a href="http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=02_300&PhotoID=387">http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=02_300&PhotoID=387</a></p>

<p>sold!</p>

<p>thanks all </p>

[digimage]

<p>Hi Ben . 1D mark II N is workhorse camera I ever have and the lens most of the time I'm shoting was 24-105 perfect for travel treet life, portrait,lanscape beside that 16-35 mm L2.8 is wonderful for landscape favories only (my opinion ). between 10-22mm , 17-40mm , 24-70 I still pick 16-35mm but if you consider 35mm 1.4 I'll pick 14mm2.8L all that my favories lens for 1D mark II but if you pick 1Ds or 5D full frame that have a little problem vinegnt with 16-35mm 24- 105mm but it's easy to fix on photoshop . enjoy & good luck</p>

[ben_cops]

<p>Weelll.... you all made me buy a 17-40 plus a 24-105.<br>

Take a look at this test shot from the 17-40 (grabbed this morning as I ran out of the house for work) - 17mm @<em>f</em>13. I have to say I'm pretty happy with the detail and the depth of field making it ideal for a landscape lens, although there's understandable (17mm!) softening at the edges, but also a fair amount of CA.<br>

Can anyone else who has a copy of this lens eyeball it for me to check I've got a "good copy"? I'm still paranoid about quality control on this one. Thanks....!<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3388834747_54633ed339_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>