Looking for a landscape lens

[jimmy986]

I am in the process of switching to Sony from Fuji/Canon. After a lot of debate, I decided to get a used a7r II to start. It will primarily be used for landscapes. After I save a little more I am going to get an a9 or something similar for wildlife, sports, etc where the better AF will help.

I haven't purchased a lens yet. What is a good landscape lens? On the landscape side, it doesn't need to be a fast lens because I can use MF for landscapes. However, if there is a great zoom that will have good image quality for landscapes but could double as a travel lens then that would be ideal to cut down the number of lenses to carry with me when I travel. Until I get an a9, or something similar, my canon will be used for wildlife and this body will be used for landscapes, street, travel, etc. So I will need to think about how to best build my kit going forward to complement each other but a good landscape lens is the first thing I want.

With my Fuji, most of my landscapes were shot with either the 14mm or the 23mm. On this full frame, that means the widest I ever used was 21mm, although there were times I would have liked to be able to go wider.

I'm not going to say that price is not a factor because it is but I don't want to go cheap if the image quality will suffer or if I could spend more on a lens that will take place the place of multiple lenses and save money, time, and switching out lenses constantly while traveling.

Edited June 29, 2018 by jimmy986

[Ike582]

Give some consideration to the Sony 16-35/f4.  I really enjoy it for landscape photography.  Coupled with the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8, you've got a nice, compact setup that can carry you a long way.

[jimmy986]

The 16-35 is definitely one I’m considering. 

I guess I should also mention that I’m not set on Sony brand if there is something else that might be better.

 

Is there a reason I see some 16-35 f/r with the G on it and some that aren't? Is one for a different mount? I'm not talking about the G master,it looks like something else.

Edited June 30, 2018 by jimmy986

[Chrissie]

5 hours ago, jimmy986 said:

I don't want to go cheap if the image quality will suffer

In that case you will end up with the 16-35 f/2.8 GM, because it's way superior to the 16-35 f/4 in terms of sharpness, transmission and chromatic aberration. In the distortion category both are on par, but that's the least significant in landscape photography.

You may want to take a look at this lens comparison database (dxo).

Edited June 30, 2018 by Chrissie

[jimmy986]

8 hours ago, Chrissie said:

In that case you will end up with the 16-35 f/2.8 GM, because it's way superior to the 16-35 f/4 in terms of sharpness, transmission and chromatic aberration. In the distortion category both are on par, but that's the least significant in landscape photography.

You may want to take a look at this lens comparison database (dxo).

It is very tempting. If the Sony system is something I'm going to commit to for a long time I don't want to skimp. I asked about landscapes but what else does this lens excel at? Since I have been a prime user for the past 6 years, I don't use zooms, especially wide zooms, very often. I'd like to justify it by using it for multiple types of shooting. Is too large for street photography? It looks like I might be able to find it used for just under $1900, possibly lower if I can be patient, which I am willing to spend even if it is just for landscapes. I have prints as large as 30x80 right now hanging up in my store for sale so I want to get good quality for large reproductions.

[keepcoding]

I would recommend to have a look at the Tokina Firin 20mm F2 lens. Excellent sharpness even wide open and very little CA and coma. The manual focus version is actually quite cheap.

I had the 16-35mm Zeiss, not a bad lens but ultimately not comparable to a prime lens such as the Tokina.

If you are after perfect sun stars, then I would recommend the Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8.

Edited June 30, 2018 by keepcoding

[tinplater]

I enjoy my 12-24.  It will give you the extra wide you crave and avoid having you have to kill anything!  Only down side is because of its bulbous front element, you can't directly apply filters.  Separate large and expensive filter holders are available.

[shogun95]

16-35 2.8 is a great lens for landscapes as well as astro work.  Not cheap but buy it once and be done.  Bokah is good as well.

[steve of stonehenge]

I have owned both the Sony 16-35 f4 and f2.8.  Since you are on a budget, go for the f4.  While not perfect, it is a very good lens.  

As you fill out your lens collection, take a look at the Sigma Art lens collection.  They are heavy lenses (generally), but IQ is really good.  And now most come in an E mount which means no need for an adapter.  

[ronaldwrightdallas]

since you are used to non zoom lens consider getting some quality lenses

 

or i chose to get the samyang 24 and 35 F2.8. when shooting landscape i never use wider than f8 anyway and these lens are pretty good at f8 and f11 and are very cheap while i consider getting the top quality lenses.

[OGWphoto]

My most used landscape lens...70-300. 

[Chrissie]

On 8/21/2018 at 11:36 PM, shogun95 said:

great lens for landscapes as well as astro work

Only a tiny little bit OT: have you heard of the new sel24F14gm?  24mm F1.4. GM.  ?