Lighter Weight Lens Selection for FF

This is a follow up to my 5D/6D Forum question thread entitled, "Is the 5D MK IV Enough?".

I am looking to capture landscapes and still life images for prints up to 36" wide that maybe viewed rather closely by friends and relations, say a couple feet away.  At this point, I am locked into the 5D MK4.  However, my lens selection of EF-S glass (10-22 & 17-55) need to be replaced.  I am concerned about weight, not being the young man I once was, but will make certain sacrifices for notably better IQ.  I would like your opinion on the following lenses being considered.

16-35L F4 IS (not II or III) for landscapes

AND

24-70L F4 IS or 24-105L F4 IS (old or new model) for general purpose

OR

50 F1.8 or 1.4 (perhaps Sigma or other third party)

I already own a fantastic 70-200L F4 IS copy and a nice 85 F1.8.  As you see, there is not a single F2.8 or faster ZOOM among them should I go this way.  I am not a professional, and I don't carry a tripod if getting on a plane.  This is why IS-equipped lenses have been my glass of choice in the past.  Please keep in mind that I am willing to upgrade in the future, but am looking for a solid FF "starter" lens package that is both affordable and decent in FL coverage (and rather lightweight) at this point.

I thank you in advance for your kind consideration.  (Actually, if I am being an idiot, say so.)

I own the Sigma Art 50 mm and find it an excellent lens. The downside for you, maybe, is that it's hardly a lightweight example of a 50. In fact, it's the heaviest 50 I've ever encountered.

What you could do is to get the very lightweight Canon 50 mm 1.8 and stop it down using it at f4 to f8 for really nice images in a lesser cost much less mass lens.

Another alternative (which may get me banned from here) is to go to the Sony Alpha 7r II which has, frankly, a better IQ for landscape than your MIV and my guess is that it masses less. You'd need to throw $400 at an E to Canon adapter too and accept unpredictable AF, but for landscape, who cares?

I'd personally take the Sony and the 50 mm f1.8 over the superb Sigma Art and the Canon MIV for landscape printing very large images. Hate to say it, but that's my take on the SOTA today.

Sidekicker wrote:

This is a follow up to my 5D/6D Forum question thread entitled, "Is the 5D MK IV Enough?".

I am looking to capture landscapes and still life images for prints up to 36" wide that maybe viewed rather closely by friends and relations, say a couple feet away. At this point, I am locked into the 5D MK4. However, my lens selection of EF-S glass (10-22 & 17-55) need to be replaced. I am concerned about weight, not being the young man I once was, but will make certain sacrifices for notably better IQ. I would like your opinion on the following lenses being considered.

16-35L F4 IS (not II or III) for landscapes

AND

24-70L F4 IS or 24-105L F4 IS (old or new model) for general purpose

OR

50 F1.8 or 1.4 (perhaps Sigma or other third party)

I already own a fantastic 70-200L F4 IS copy and a nice 85 F1.8. As you see, there is not a single F2.8 or faster ZOOM among them should I go this way. I am not a professional, and I don't carry a tripod if getting on a plane. This is why IS-equipped lenses have been my glass of choice in the past. Please keep in mind that I am willing to upgrade in the future, but am looking for a solid FF "starter" lens package that is both affordable and decent in FL coverage (and rather lightweight) at this point.

I thank you in advance for your kind consideration. (Actually, if I am being an idiot, say so.)

Kicker.

For  me it is an easy choice as I have many of the options you are considering.

Hands down the canon 16-35 f/4 L IS. Great color and sharp to the corners. And the IS does come in handy, even for a Wide Angle Zoom. I bought it specifically for a trip to Rome where Tripods are not allowed in the Basilica's. Hand held, with proper technique of corse, at 1/10 of a second came out crystal clear. A fantastic lens!

Regarding the Standard Zoom, I was in the same situation for a few years. With my 7D, I used my old trusty 24-105 f/4 L IS with satisfaction. When I went to a full frame 5D MarkIII, the wide end distortion of the 24-105 raised its head. For a couple of years, I decided between the 24-70 F/4 L IS vs. 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II. Last year right before Christmas I took my own "When in Rome" advice. I chose the smaller, lighter 24-70 f/4 L IS. While many complained about this f/4 L IS, I certainly see an improvement in color and sharpness compared to my old trusty 24-105. Having rented the 24-70 f/2.8 L numerous times for weddings, I know when the "Yips" are settling in. You know the shakes that develop because you do not have enough water in your body. As your body seeks water, my shaky hands come to life. You certainly don't need to use the facilities at the wrong time. So Image Stabilization wins out for me.

Last summer I decided to travel "lighter"  for a trip to Iceland. I took 2 Gripped 5D Mark III's along with the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. My Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS did not disappoint one bit.

The Sony and the Nikon D810 are both being considered too.  Thirty years ago, I was a Nikon system owner.  I will likely stick with Canon, however.  I do appreciate your feedback.

Thanks Nick!

Thank you, Didier!  At this point, I think I will go with the 16-35 F4 IS and 24-70 F4IS.

16mm -- 300mm.  all inexpensive current L lenses with IS.