Hi everyone! I recently upgraded to the Canon EOS 6D Mark II, and while I’m absolutely loving the full-frame sensor for my everyday shots, I’m struggling to decide on the perfect lens to dedicatedly capture landscapes. I’ve been using the 24-105mm kit lens, which is a great all-rounder, but I find myself hitting that 24mm limit quite often when I'm out in the mountains or at the coast. I really want that expansive, dramatic look that only a true wide-angle can provide.
I’ve been doing some research and I'm a bit torn between going for a versatile zoom or a sharp prime. The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM seems to be a huge favorite for its sharpness and image stabilization, which would be great for those golden hour shots when I don't have my tripod handy. On the other hand, I’ve heard amazing things about the EF 17-40mm f/4L as a more budget-friendly entry into the L-series, or even something like a 14mm prime for total immersion.
My main focus is on edge-to-edge sharpness and how the lens handles flare, especially since I love shooting during sunrise. My budget is around $800 - $1,200, though I’m open to looking at the used market if it means getting higher-quality glass. I primarily hike with my gear, so weight is a slight consideration, but image quality is definitely my top priority.
For those of you who shoot landscapes with the 6D Mark II, which lens has stayed in your bag the longest? Do you think it’s worth spending the extra premium for the f/2.8 versions if I’m mostly shooting at f/8 or f/11 anyway? I'd love to hear your personal experiences or any specific recommendations you might have!
Seconding the recommendation above! Honestly, skip the cheaper L-series glass because the edge softness and flare are just frustrating on a high-res sensor. If youre shooting at f/8, dont waste cash on the f/2.8 versions. Instead, look for a used Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. It hits that $800 price point and the sunstars are way better than the 17-40mm. Just watch out for lens creep on older used copies, it's a real pain when hiking!
Seconding the recommendation above! Honestly, I totally agree that the 17-40mm can be a bit of a letdown if you're chasing that crisp, edge-to-edge sharpness on a full-frame sensor like the 6D Mark II.
Since your budget is in that $800 - $1,200 sweet spot, you should definitely skip the f/2.8 versions. Like you said, if you're shooting at f/8 or f/11, you're just paying for extra weight and glass you won't use. My absolute favorite for hiking is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. It handles flare way better than the older designs, and the Image Stabilization is a lifesaver for those "tripod-free" sunrise moments.
If you want something even wider and don't mind a bulbous front element, look at the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2. It’s a beast weight-wise, but the optics are incredible for the price. Personally though, the 16-35mm f/4L is the one that’s stayed in my bag for years because it's so balanced. Hope this helps!
Hi there, I totally get where you're coming from! I've been shooting with the 6D Mark II for a few years now. Honestly, I started with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM because of the price, but I was pretty disappointed with the edge softness and flare when shooting into the sun. It just wasn't as good as I expected for L-series glass. Anyway, back to your question!
In my experience, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is the clear winner here. I upgraded to it and the edge-to-edge sharpness is miles better than the 17-40mm. The IS is a lifesaver for those handheld golden hour shots you mentioned. FWIW, I don't think the f/2.8 version is worth the extra weight or cost if you're mostly at f/8. If you want something wider, I tried the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 AF for Canon EF, but the distortion was a bit much for me. Stick with the 16-35mm f/4L; it's teh perfect balance for hiking! Hope this helps!
Same here!
This is exactly what I needed to hear. Youre a lifesaver honestly.
Nice, didn't know that
Been thinking about your dilemma for a bit because ive been there so many times. Honestly, hitting that 24mm wall when you finally reach a summit is just the worst. Its beyond frustrating to put in all that effort hiking only to feel like you cant actually fit the scale of the place into the frame. I've spent years dealing with that exact same struggle and it never gets easier trying to find glass that doesnt turn the corners into a blurry mess or flare out the second the sun pops up. Its a real headache. Quick question tho, are you planning on doing large physical prints with these shots or is this mostly for digital stuff? Also, how much weight are we talking when you say its a slight consideration? Theres a huge difference between an extra pound and something that makes you want to leave your bag in the dirt halfway up a trail.
Same boat, watching this
Exactly what I was thinking
Following
