Mon 18-Feb-13 12:46 AM | edited Mon 18-Feb-13 12:47 AM by jec6613
>So the 14 or 16 zoom is more practical than a prime?
The 14-24 in particular is faster and sharper than any primes in that range. The 16-35 isn't as fast, but it's easily as sharp, so I'd say that, yes, they're more versatile for landscapes. The really fast primes at f/1.4 and f/1.8 are for getting either razor thing depth of field or keeping shutter speed up in low light, or both. Either of these are concerns for landscapes.
Frankly, I do all of my landscape-type shots on an 18-55 on DX, even when I have it at 35 mm (I have the 35 f/1.8); by f/7.1 or so it's as sharp as any other lens, it gives me a bit more selectivity in my framing. Similarly, when stopped down, I skip the 85 f/1.8 and go to the 55-200. Even on DX, I'd be using a 16-35 if I had it over the primes.
You could also decide that for landscape, a few manual focus primes work well - they aren't as good optically as a 14-24 but they're much less expensive and just fun to use. Of course, what you really want for landscape are the trio of PC-E Micro lenses, but that's another story entirely.