Simple one: best standard landscape zoom ?

Simple question: in your opinion, witch is the best standard zoom lens for landscape ? By standard, I mean 24-70 or 24-105mm, on FF body. By landscape, I mean mostly used by f/5.6 or less, and looking for best and most homogeneous sharpness.

You'll notice there's a big missing one. Obviously Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II is out of the poll for being to good, too pricey.

You list the Sigma OS and Tamron both $1,200 glass. In that case if possible save a bit more and get the Canon 24-70/2.8-II. Seems that that is your ultimate lens so rather than compromise on price, wait till it is doable.

Thanks. In Europe, the Canon f/2.8 is more or less 500€ or 500$ more than Tamron and Sigma's. And it is not stabilized... That's why I put it apart. It is a lens apart. Of course it has the best IQ of all, but I'd rather think of it as a legendary lens, so let's deal with real world lenses.

Well, you noticed the canon f/2.8 II was the best, just like everyone. What's the point then, asking such a question with it in the poll ?

The 24-70/2.8-I is still a very nice lens and used prices make them quite affordable.  When I had mine serviced I debated the jump to the Mk-II but spending $300 for repair or $1,500 made that an easy wallet choice. (The other is the change in filter size which would add another $300 to get ND, polarizer, etc.) The MkI may not be at the same level as the MkII 24-70 yet the results are still excellent. I like that lens over the 24-105/4 Mk-I any day.

I totally agree with you about first generation Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4.

Now a new f/4 zoom wouldn't cost me much as a replacement lens, while giving me a stabilized lens. Witch a new f/2.8 would give me too. A Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II would cost me a lot, without giving me stabilisation... just super IQ. I'm trying a see clearer through all this choice.

borax wrote:

I totally agree with you about first generation Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4.

Now a new f/4 zoom wouldn't cost me much as a replacement lens, while giving me a stabilized lens. Witch a new f/2.8 would give me too. A Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II would cost me a lot, without giving me stabilisation... just super IQ. I'm trying a see clearer through all this choice.

That's been the on going question that differentiates the 24-70 and 24-105 all these years. That depends what your preferences are when shooting, IS or the large aperture.  I have both yet my preference has been the 24-70.  For my lens samples the 24-70 nudges the 24-105 in IQ, color and sharpness. More so now that it has been serviced and I find it is even nicer than when I first bought it in '05.

borax wrote:

Simple question: in your opinion, witch is the best standard zoom lens for landscape ? By standard, I mean 24-70 or 24-105mm, on FF body. By landscape, I mean mostly used by f/5.6 or less, and looking for best and most homogeneous sharpness.

You'll notice there's a big missing one. Obviously Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II is out of the poll for being to good, too pricey.

Its not on your list but a 16-34mm f4 is a favorite. Before that its predecessor, the 17-40mm was preferred. , It is still a nice lens but but well behind (either of) the newer 16-35mms in terms of across the frame sharpness, reduced CA, etc.  To my bespectacled eyes, the  16-35 f4 is visibly better (on a 5dsr at least) in the 20 to 28mm range than the 24-70 F4 at 24mm (at F8) and dead heat with the 24-70 F2.8III. All three of these latter are demonstrably better than both marks of 24-105mm. That said the Mk 2 of the 24-105 is improved over the mk 1 at both ends of the range, especially at the wider apertures.

Have had and extensively tested 24-70 2.8II, 24-70 f4 IS, tamron 24-70 2.8II, canon 24-105.  at f8, the 24-70 f4 IS is the best bang for the buck.  its almost small and has a 77 mm thread filter.