gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I like my Sigma 10-20 on my crop sensor D7000. Used it exclusively in the Utah parks last year. Very happy with the results. Go wide.

Chefneil

Sir, with all due respect, I think the OP is using Both Crop and full Frame cameras. I believe the sigma is an APC lens, Great for the 70D, not s much for the 5D he is sporting.

JPL

For your crop sensor camera a 10-20mm lens would be a good wide angle and for the full frame a 16-35 mm lens.

AGO

Chefneil is correct that the Sigma 10-20 is an APC lens. Sigma also has a 12-24 DG lens that would work with FF but it is quite a bit more expensive. The 10-20 is now on sale. If cost is a factor, and it is not a lens that the OP would use a lot, it still might be a good choice even if it could only be used with one of his cameras.

williejoha

I use the EF 17-40 L and love that lens. Gives me everything and need. Good luck and Merry Christmas. You will find lots of great shooting out west.
WJH

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

You can rent the 16-35mm f/2.8L III for about $100 (7 days) or the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for about $65 (7 days).
According to Lensrental, the Mk III is by far the better of the two.

Bob Boner

I use the Canon 11-24 quite a bit, and really like it.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes!

Sigma ART lenses are wonderful. The 18-35 is great on a 70D.

rbmitch123

24-720 mm. Really???and it’s light??

Gammy Sandy Loc: Hernando Beach, FL

Will check all out....Can't wait to get to the Grand Canyon!!!! Thank you all!!

rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx

The 16-35 f4 is in my mind Canon's sharpest wide angle zoom. I also have similar 2.8 versions and the F4 is the best. However it isn't very wide on your 70D crop sensor camera. Great for full frame. I use a Canon 10-18 on crop sensors. Small, light weight, cheap and very sharp.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Ask yourself what you intend to use this lens for and if you might need it for shooting the stars or milky way. If so, you might want to consider the f/2.8 version. Canon makes the Mark II and Mark III versions now. The Mark II is a very small improvement over the original 16-35 f/2.8 but the Mark III is stellar. But you are talking about $1300 vss $2000 on these two lenses. If you only plan to use them for landscapes or group images, then the f/4 of this is fine. You don't need IS since it's such a short focal length.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

IS is helpful in low light and when using higher f-stop, as you often should do for landscape shots. Especially if handheld.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ($1000) lens would be an excellent choice. It's the zoom I plan to purchase when I get a 5DS-R (as soon as I win the lottery ... I currently use the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM on my 5DII).

The 16-35mm f/4 has top image quality, almost equal to that of the f/2.8 III version that costs twice as much ($1999), doesn't have IS and is bigger and heavier. The f/4 also uses a 77mm filter (same as your 100-400mm), rather than the bigger and more expensive 82mm filters the f/2.8 lens requires. The two current 16-35mm have noticeably better IQ than the earlier 16-35mm f/2.8 (original and II), the EF 17-40mm f/4L and the older EF 17-35mm f/2.8L and EF 20-35mm f/2.8L lenses.

The other ultrawide I'd consider is the EF 11-24mm f/4L, but that has a convex front element that precludes using standard filters, is also rather large and heavy, doesn't have IS and costs almost 3X as much ($2699) as the 16-35mm f/4. For architectural photography, if money were no object I'd want the TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt Shift (I already have TS-E 24mm and TS-E 45mm.)

For landscape and most other wide angle work, you probably don't need faster than f/4. In fact, you're very likely going to find yourself stopping down for increased depth of field.... not even using an f/4 lens wide open very often. An exception might be photojournalism or astrophotography or other night shots, when a larger aperture lens might be wanted for a brighter viewfinder (or just use Live View with Exposure Simulation with the f/4 lens). But for much other wide angle shooting, f/4 lenses are fine (and often have better IQ across the frame and in the corners).

See for yourself at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx If you click on "Image Quality" there, you can compare highly magnified details of test shots made with any two lenses against each other. You can also compare other image quality factors such as vignetting, flare, distortion.

Comparing the EF 16-35mm f/4L against the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III, the $1000 lens has shows just a wee bit of chromatic aberration in the extreme corners at the wide end, which the $2000 lens avoids. Keep in mind that CA is pretty easily corrected, in-camera if shooting JPEGs or in post-processing if shooting RAW. And wide open at the 35mm end of their range, the $1000 lens is slightly softer in the extreme corners. But stopping down lessens that and in both cases it's such little difference you would have to be looking at your images at silly magnifications to notice it.

If still uncertain, you might want to rent the 16-35mm f/4L to give it a try. But I bet you end up buying it!

If you prefer primes you might look at the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.... Both superb lenses that aren't too big and heavy... and won't break the bank. Or, the older EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (has a wee bit of distortion and isn't quite as sharp in the corners).

I can't imagine shooting landscapes without a wide lens.... while some landscapes can be done with telephotos, I use wide angles for that purpose far, far more often!

20mm and 17-35mm on full frame:



20mm and 10-22mm on APS-C:

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

So is a tripod.