105mm prime for landscapes??

Tom Pinchenzo

Tom Pinchenzo

Messages
1,024
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I really want a telephoto lens for more considered landscape compositions.

I have a limited budget and would love a 70-200 but even the f4 lenses are out of my range! I feel like if you want great image quality at an affordable price, primes are the way to go...

My question is this: Would I end up frustrated by the lack of flexibility of composition if I got a 105mm prime for landscapes? Is it a silly idea?

Are there any affordable telephoto zooms if I forgo IS/VR - I'd even be willing to forgo autofocus for a great affordable lens. I use a APS-C but I'm trying to keep my options open should I wish to upgrade to full-frame one day.

Any advice please!

Thanks,
Tom
 
I am far from an expert Landscape photographer but I find my Canon 100 Macro to be a great landscape lens on FF and crop. However I find all my lenses, from 16 to 800mm, to have their place in landscape photography - it is all down to what you are trying to achieve.

Every lens is a landscape lens to someone, even my 800 F5.6!
 
LeeRatters said:
Canon?

What 105mm prime are you thinking of?

An EF 70-200/4 can be picked up for £400/450.
Click to expand...

Nikon. From what I’ve seen the 70-200 f4 goes for £800 used...

I’m looking at the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro. It also appeals for macro photography and candid portraits etc.
 
You’ll be able to pick up an alternative make used Nikon fit 70-200 for a lot less than that. If shooting landscapes then you should be in the sweet spot for lens sharpness around f/8-f/11 so you’ll get the best out of it.

A 105 2.8 could be very interesting as well though. I had max 90mm when I shot with my Leica M cameras and you can do an awful lot with 90mm.
 
I own the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro for Canon, and have found it to be super sharp from corner to corner, from wide open to f11 - acceptably sharp at f16.
Take a look at the following link for the blur profile on a crop sensor camera:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/105mm-f2.8-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro/blur/canon-7d/

It stays very flat all the way to f16, and is still very good on less forgiving FF cameras.

Snappy AF and decent OS....if a little noisy, the only minor negative is that it's a tad heavy.

I'm very happy with my copy, it's been the bargain of the century for me (I paid £360 new), and if you can find one used, even more so.

johnf3f said:
Every lens is a landscape lens to someone, even my 800 F5.6!
Click to expand...

I agree, I have been meaning to try my 105mm and 70-200mm for landscapes....one is able to pick out nice detail and interesting compositions with a tele.
 
Last edited:
GarethB said:
I own the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro for Canon, and have found it to be super sharp from corner to corner, from wide open to f11 - acceptably sharp at f16.
Take a look at the following link for the blur profile on a crop sensor camera:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/105mm-f2.8-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro/blur/canon-7d/

It stays very flat all the way to f16, and is still very good on less forgiving FF cameras.

Snappy AF and decent OS....if a little noisy, the only minor negative is that it's a tad heavy.

I'm very happy with my copy, it's been the bargain of the century for me (I paid £360 new), and if you can find one used, even more so.



I agree, I have been meaning to try my 105mm and 70-200mm for landscapes....one is able to pick out nice detail and interesting compositions with a tele.
Click to expand...


I tend to prefer a zoom lens where possible - but that is because I am a lazy git! When working with primes you get the advantages of smaller size and (usually) price but you have to work with what the lens will and won't do. This can be an enjoyable challenge!

You already have the Sigma 105 so get out and use it, see if/how it suits your needs - it will certainly deliver quality images, the rest is up to you....................Above all have fun!
 
Last edited:
Personally I think it would be a little tricky at times. The 105mm 2.8 will definitely give great results as it's a very nice lens but I just have a feeling there'll be many times where it's either just too long or too short. Too short is easier to manage with a bit of cropping but far from ideal.

Honestly, I don't buy into this whole buy full frame lenses in preparation for moving to FF one day. Just buy what suits now so you're not compromising. You can always sell on later. Nikon do make a 55-200 lens that will do just fine at landscape apertures and will still leave enough change for a decent macro lens if you want one. There is 3 or 4 very good 70-300 options available.
 
I like the versatility of a 70-200mm but I think a 105mm prime would be a struggle especially on a crop sensor. Unfortunately full frame lenses are expensive, probably best to look at crop lenses for now and if your circumstances change upgrade your lenses when you go full frame
 
LeeRatters said:
Canon?

What 105mm prime are you thinking of?

An EF 70-200/4 can be picked up for £400/450.
Click to expand...

Is there an equivalent lens for Nikon or something similar by sigma etc? I notice sigma has just releases a 70-210 f4 but it’s new so nothing second hand.
 
I'm still new, but i do have the (Nikon) sigma 2.8, 70-200 hsm macro thing (proper details in sig) for the price, i think its certainly worth a look, prob around 200-250 mark now and you get the benefit of close focus as well, maybe not in the nikon 70-200 tack sharp range, but its also £1400 cheaper :eek:
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
My question is this: Would I end up frustrated by the lack of flexibility of composition if I got a 105mm prime for landscapes? Is it a silly idea?
Click to expand...

Good quality primes are great, no doubt about it. Think you've hit the nail on the head though. You'll love a 105mm prime, like most primes they make you work harder for a composition but you'll soon be wishing you had more reach. I take more landscapes with a 70-200 compared to any other lens, even then there are times when something with a longer reach would have been appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Scott Robertson said:
Good quality primes are great, no doubt about it. Think you've hit the nail on the head though. You'll love a 105mm prime, like most primes they make you work harder for a composition but you'll soon be wishing you had more reach. I take more landscapes with a 70-200 compared to any other lens, even then there are times when something with a longer reach would have been appropriate.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight Scott - I think you might be right that if I got the 105mm I would be wishing I had more reach (and flexibility more generally) but I think my hand is forced by the fact that there isn't a 70-200 worth buying for Nikon within my budget. I've just had a baby so I don't think I could justify £800 for a lens :(
 
johnf3f said:
Every lens is a landscape lens to someone
Click to expand...

This. Also, if you do get a prime and use it, it won't be long before you'll start to "see" at that focal length, and will know what any scene will look like through it. You'll probably struggle to begin with but once you sight it in, you'll be away. I've got a 180mm lens on my film camera (90mm in FX terms) which was a royal pain to begin with but now I'm getting used to it. It's very different to more traditional wide angles though and you have to work a bit harder for your compositions.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Nikon. From what I’ve seen the 70-200 f4 goes for £800 used...

I’m looking at the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro. It also appeals for macro photography and candid portraits etc.
Click to expand...

Some have gone for around £600. There are cheaper options if you go for Sigma or Tamron down to about £300. Why not get one of the 70-300 mm lenses? They will be much more budget friendly for you.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Thanks for the insight Scott - I think you might be right that if I got the 105mm I would be wishing I had more reach (and flexibility more generally) but I think my hand is forced by the fact that there isn't a 70-200 worth buying for Nikon within my budget. I've just had a baby so I don't think I could justify £800 for a lens :(
Click to expand...

How about a 55-300 VR for your crop sensor camera? Remember the 105mm prime will be 157.5mm on your APS-C Nikon.
 
Tom Green said:
Why not get one of the 70-300 mm lenses? They will be much more budget friendly for you.
Click to expand...
I’d not considered the 70-300 range - as you say they’re cheaper than the 70-200. I assumed you’d get better quality for the price with a smaller zoom range but that latest Nikon 70-300 AF-P lenses have pretty good reviews and are much more affordable.
 
Also look at the 18-200 as in my signature, nothing wrong with it, around 150-200 i would say now. cheaper as its not a "fast" lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top