|
I bought a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non-IS) in 2010 and it is superb.
So, so, very sharp.
The f/4L IS is even sharper.
The 17-40mm f/4L USM is no slouch for landscapes. 95% of my landscapes, if not more, have been captured with that lens, and, at f/16, too. The only thing that the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM has in favour of it, apart from the extra stop of light (not so much of an issue for my landscape work) is that it gives the most incredible well-defined diffraction spikes at sunrise and sunset. The 17-40mm f/4L USM is a mess in that regard. I can't justify upgrading to the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, however.
My 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is probably the sharpest tool in my bag. This lens cops a lot of bagging on forums, but, I must have got a good copy as it is flawless. People complain about barrell distortion with this lens. Well, if they bothered to use the lens correction built into Digital Photo Professional, they'd realise that it takes care of all that nonsense.
For landscape work, you would want to decide between (or, get all) of the following: 14mm, 24mm, 16-35mm and/or the 17-40mm.
If you're into tilt-shift work, there's sufficient lenses in that regard, too. I don't know the first thing about tilt-shift so can't comment.
H
|