The best way to spend $1000 for lenses for landscapes?

[TimmyD11]

So I am going out to Banff / Jasper next week and I plan on getting the 6D beforehand.

I'd like to pick up a lens or lenses for landscapes.

Right now I am looking at the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM for $999, unless I can get two very sharp but not-so-fast wide angle prime lenses for around the same money.

What is the best way to go? Any specific lenses you recommend?

 

[Big Mike]

The 17-40mm F4 L, comes to mind. It's an older lens, likely to be replaced by this 16-35mm F4 IS. But it's a few hundred cheaper new, and there should be plenty of them on the used market for even less.

I can't think of any really good, wide, prime lenses in the $500 price range.

Do you have a good tripod? That would be high on my list.

Also, be prepared for poor air quality. Late summer is usually hit and miss for hazy days...but with all the wildfires in BC and south of the border, it can be downright soupy. If you are going with the intention of getting those iconic 'postcard' shots that are so well known....I would say that you'd have to be extremely lucky.

Still a majestic and magical part of the world...it's just hard to photograph with all the smoke haze.

 

[TimmyD11]

Damn, didn't think it was going to be an issue there. Hope I don't regret not going to Olympic NP instead.

Anyhow, from Banff to Jasper there is a lot of distance, and Willmore Wilderness Park is north of Jasper. I'll have to see where it's not as bad.

I planned this trip around the new moon too, for dark sky viewing.

Hope this works out more than it doesn't. Last time it rained more than half the week I was there.

Finally, Canon has some non L wide angle prime lenses in the $500 range that average photographers (not average pro photographers) think pretty highly of, wonder if they're any good.

 

[Designer]

..that average photographers (not average pro photographers) think pretty highly of,

There's a message within that statement.

 

[TimmyD11]

Well, what I mean is, those Canon non L wide angle prime lenses get 5 star reviews from customers at amazon, B&H and Adorama, even if not at dpreview or dxomark etc.

 

[weepete]

the 16-35mm L is a nice lens, my dad has a copy and I've used it on a few occasions, so yeah, go for it!

 

[Destin]

Check out the Tamron 15-30 VC. It's rated better than the Nikon 14-24, which canon really still hasn't been able to match.

I think right now in the $1000 ballpark (okay it's $1299) I think this is the best landscape lens on the market. I'll be buying one soon.

 

[Designer]

Well, what I mean is, those Canon non L wide angle prime lenses get 5 star reviews from customers at amazon, B&H and Adorama, even if not at dpreview or dxomark etc.

If ordinary customers like the lens, but they don't have extensive experience at evaluating lenses, and the people who evaluate lenses for a living don't particularly like the lens, which group's opinion would count more?

 

[jaomul]

Lots of happy users with a tokina 16-28 f2.8

 

[TimmyD11]

Well, what I mean is, those Canon non L wide angle prime lenses get 5 star reviews from customers at amazon, B&H and Adorama, even if not at dpreview or dxomark etc.

If ordinary customers like the lens, but they don't have extensive experience at evaluating lenses, and the people who evaluate lenses for a living don't particularly like the lens, which group's opinion would count more?

Well, perhaps in this case ignorance is bliss. If ordinary people see beautiful photographs taken with only fair to good lenses...well, they like what they see.

Then here comes the analytical guys, unable to appreciate what most people can appreciate, because they know what they are looking for.

Who's happier?

 

[TimmyD11]

So maybe a better compromise is to get a few Sigma ART prime lenses instead of older Canon non L prime lenses. But real actual breathing people seem to like both.

Besides, without looking it up I don't know if I could get two Sigma ART prime lenses for the same cost.

Scratch that. Looked it up. I can't. All very fast lenses so costs remain high, even if not Canon and Nikon high.

 

[kalgra]

I have the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS and used to use it on a 6D. It is very good you wouldn't be disappointed with it, its extremely sharp. As someone else here stated though the 17-40 f/4 is also another really good option for less. The Tamron 15-30 VC mentioned is also a stellar lens but a tad too wide for my personal liking and if you like using grads is a pain and can get expensive. At least the two canon lenses are threaded for standard filters. Just my two cents.

 

[TimmyD11]

That Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART lens would be nice if I needed a fast lens and could put up with the restrictions of a fixed lens. I don't think I need a lens this fast for landscape photography (although I wonder how it fairs as an astrophotography lens) and I don't think I want to be restricted to 24mm...although it's a very useful focal length.

 

[STR8SHOOTR]

I also use the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II and love it. I don't think you can go wrong with that lense its very versatile.

 

[TimmyD11]

I also use the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II and love it. I don't think you can go wrong with that lense its very versatile.

Well I was looking at the F4 version of that lens, which is $300 cheaper, and supposedly sharper.