Landscape Lens Question

[jdma]

Happy New Year!
The wife blessed me with a new Canon R6 for Christmas. I had a question about a landscape lens though
I have always primarily shot with zoom lenses for the wildlife. (Considering the 100-500 lens for zoom) However, what is your go to lens with a mirrorless camera for landscape. I want to shoot more landscape at these national and state parks. I have the old 24-70 with my old camera but not sure that is what I really want for the new camera. I would appreciate any thoughts or ideas that you may have.
Thanks in advance.

[ATX Tyler]

Which 24-70 do you have? I find that most of my landscape stuff is shot in that range.

I did just pick up the RF 15-35mm f2.8 as a "do-it-all" wide angle and astrophotography lens, and so far it's pretty awesome. I'd recommend it for sure.

[tgil]

Which 24-70 do you have? I find that most of my landscape stuff is shot in that range.

I did just pick up the RF 15-35mm f2.8 as a "do-it-all" wide angle and astrophotography lens, and so far it's pretty awesome. I'd recommend it for sure.

Just rented a 15-35 to try some nightscape stuff. Really liked the results!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[jbr81900]

The 28-70 f2 would definately be my pic. Great for Astrophotography as well as landscape and porttrait.

[jdma]

Which 24-70 do you have? I find that most of my landscape stuff is shot in that range.

I did just pick up the RF 15-35mm f2.8 as a "do-it-all" wide angle and astrophotography lens, and so far it's pretty awesome. I'd recommend it for sure.

It is the 24-70 f/2.8. Love the lens but thinking it would be good to get a little wider. I am also a Realtor and thought the 15-35 would be good for that as well.

[Bill M]

It is the 24-70 f/2.8. Love the lens but thinking it would be good to get a little wider. I am also a Realtor and thought the 15-35 would be good for that as well.

While we don't shoot Canon in our house, my wife is also a realtor. I bought her a Sony 16-35, f4 for using in the homes she lists and it has worked for that purpose very well. I find when she lets me borrow it out in the outdoors, I shoot at 16 to 24mm and most of the time unless it is out on water shooting a sunrise or sunset, it's 24. A new lens is always good.

[ATX Tyler]

It is the 24-70 f/2.8. Love the lens but thinking it would be good to get a little wider. I am also a Realtor and thought the 15-35 would be good for that as well.

I have a buddy who does real estate photography and shoots with that 15-35 almost entirely for that. Another slightly cheaper option would be canons new 14-35mm f4. If you don't need the f2.8 that would be a pretty sweet option that is super wide and lighter.

[chongo]

Most of my landscape is done with the 24-70 as well. I went back and looked at my last trip to Colorado and I shot more landscape with the 24-70 and 100-500 than the 15-35. Though, the 15-35 is nice to have. It's a great lens for Astrophotography.

You can't go wrong with either lens. If you're not shooting a lot of astro I'd probably lean towards the 14-35 f4 that Tyler mentioned if you want to go wide and save a few hundred dollars, otherwise I'd recommend the 24-70.

And, since you mentioned the 100-500, just get it. Fantastic lens!

[jdma]

Thanks for the help. I really appreciate your time and thoughts

[Casey]

I have the 16-35 EF (2 versions) and the 24-70 f2.8 EF. I tend to use the 24-70 most of the time for landscapes.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 RF and 100-500 RF. Love both of those. However, the price tag on the RF glass keeps me happy with the EF versions mentioned above.

[jdma]

I have the 16-35 EF (2 versions) and the 24-70 f2.8 EF. I tend to use the 24-70 most of the time for landscapes.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 RF and 100-500 RF. Love both of those. However, the price tag on the RF glass keeps me happy with the EF versions mentioned above.

Awesome!!! Thanks so much for your input

[WyoBull]

Last month I completely changed ecosystems after shooting Nikon for 40+ years.
I bought the Canon R5 along with the RF 24-105 and RF 100-500.

My experience thus far is that the 24-105 is just fine for landscapes. I had a 16-35 when I was shooting Nikon but unless you are doing very large landscape scenes, I was rarely down in the 16 mm range.

My thought process at this point is that the two lenses I purchased will cover 95% of what I shoot on a regular basis.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[niceg3s]

I use a 20mm at f/1.8. Based on what you are saying, I think you would benefit more from the low light ability than getting wider or having the ability to zoom. You also can do more with depth of field using a f/1.8 than 2.8 or 4. If you find yourself in motion when shooting, boat, train, whatever, a fast lens is hard to beat as well.