D700 / D3 Users. What lens do you use most for landscapes?

S

Steveo_Hants

Messages
763
Edit My Images
Yes
I am very close to purchasing a D700 but am stuck on wide angle lens choice. Can you guys tell me which lens you use most for wide landscapes?

Cheers
 
I am not too fond of wide-angle lenses ... I have the Sigma 20/1.8 but hardly ever use it. I have been contemplating the Voigtlander 20/3.5, but seeing how little use I get from the Sigma I may just skip on this.

For landscapes, I like the 35~60mm range .. Anything wider is just too wide, in my opinion. One of the sexiest lenses I have is the 58/1.4 Voigtlander, the image out of it are as if the lens has a in-built circular polariser .. colours are just amazing.

But if you really want to go the wide-angel route, I'd suggest the 17-35 AF-S.
 
ShawWellPete said:
I use the Nikon 14-24 2.8, pricey but a stunner. It's a bit wider the the Sigma 10-20 on a cropped sensor and it's incredibly sharp.
Click to expand...

There is no doubting the performance of the 14-24 .. if anything, it will become one of Nikon's legends.

I've researched this lens to death, trying to find anyway that I could use ND and Circular Polarisers with it; sadly it's just not doable :shake:. Hence my recommendation for the 17-35 AF-S.
 
Zeiss 25mm Distagon 2.8 T* but just got a Tokina 20-35mm 2.8 again (had one for EOS a few years back) and so likely use that as needed. Otherwise, the Voigtlander mentioned above looks very good.
 
kalibre said:
Tamron 17-35. :thumbs:
Click to expand...


I know you have the Tamron 17-35 but have you ever had the chnace to comapre it to the Nikon 17-35?
Its a bit more then double the price but want to get peoples opinions?
 
Steveo_Hants said:
I know you have the Tamron 17-35 but have you ever had the chnace to comapre it to the Nikon 17-35?
Its a bit more then double the price but want to get peoples opinions?
Click to expand...

I don't know about a bit more than double the price Steveo! I picked up a brand new Tamron 17-35 from Mifsuds for £150. That was an excellent price for a good lens. They usually go for a bit more than this. The Nikon 17-35 costs a bit more than that. They are going second hand for £7 - 800+.

I was using the Nikon 14-24 which is a fabulous lens. However, as Wail says it does not allow the use of filters. A few months ago I picked up a used Nikon 17-35 that I am very happy with and sold the 14-24.

I have to say though that The Tamron was pretty good and for the £150 that I paid was an absolute bargain.

Chris :)
 
i would use either my 24mm or 35 mm prime or 85mm if i wanted to compress the hills a bit say.
 
I don't want to derail the thread, but I was curious about the 17-35 Tamron .. is it a constant aperture f/2.8? Or is it an f/2.8-4 lens?


Blue Moon 7 said:
I don't know about a bit more than double the price Steveo! I picked up a brand new Tamron 17-35 from Mifsuds for £150. That was an excellent price for a good lens. They usually go for a bit more than this. The Nikon 17-35 costs a bit more than that. They are going second hand for £7 - 800+.

I was using the Nikon 14-24 which is a fabulous lens. However, as Wail says it does not allow the use of filters. A few months ago I picked up a used Nikon 17-35 that I am very happy with and sold the 14-24.

I have to say though that The Tamron was pretty good and for the £150 that I paid was an absolute bargain.

Chris :)
Click to expand...


£150, don't you just love it when you are able to get such bargains :thumbs:
 
I use the Nikon 14 to 24 if I need to go ultra wide, but the lack of filter support is hugely off putting so it often stays in the bag. I tend to use the Nikon 24 to 70 for 90% of my landscape shots, it is an absolutely sublime bit of glass, faultless as far as I am concerned.

Gary.
 
Wail said:
I don't want to derail the thread, but I was curious about the 17-35 Tamron .. is it a constant aperture f/2.8? Or is it an f/2.8-4 lens?





£150, don't you just love it when you are able to get such bargains :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Hi Wail,

Hope you are well!

It's f2:8 - 4

Was a fine lens for the price. I was given the heads up on the great deal by Chillimonster & puddleduck at the time. They are going for between £250 - £350 now. Had a look on Warehouse Express and got a bit of a shock :shake:

Chris :)
 
Blue Moon 7 said:
Hi Wail,

Hope you are well!

It's f2:8 - 4

Was a fine lens for the price. I was given the heads up on the great deal by Chillimonster & puddleduck at the time. They are going for between £250 - £350 now. Had a look on Warehouse Express and got a bit of a shock :shake:

Chris :)
Click to expand...

:)

Am doing well, thank you very much; well can't complain :shrug: :thumbs:

Frankly, I tend to stalk :wave: puddleduck as much as possible; he always seems to know where and how to find good bargains.

For the price you paid, I would have happily done so, even without knowing what to expect .. given the recommendations by the Chilli and Duck guys :p



sdb123 said:
It's an f/2.8 - f/4 lens.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, but I was wondering in case there was another lens which I couldn't dig-out.

Other than being a good 30% of the Nikon price, I am not too sure it's fair to compare these two lenses (Tamron 17-35 vs. Nikon 17-35 AF-S), unless I am mistaken.

Would love to hear of image and built-quality comparisons from someone who's used the two.
 
Wail said:
:)



Other than being a good 30% of the Nikon price, I am not too sure it's fair to compare these two lenses (Tamron 17-35 vs. Nikon 17-35 AF-S), unless I am mistaken.

Would love to hear of image and built-quality comparisons from someone who's used the two.
Click to expand...

Yeah me too!
 
Wail said:
There is no doubting the performance of the 14-24 .. if anything, it will become one of Nikon's legends.

I've researched this lens to death, trying to find anyway that I could use ND and Circular Polarisers with it; sadly it's just not doable :shake:. Hence my recommendation for the 17-35 AF-S.
Click to expand...

It is very doable - see my replies to Gary's thread here and here
 
dalex_257 said:
It is very doable - see my replies to Gary's thread here and here
Click to expand...

Thank you for the links. I have read them earlier, when you originally posted them.

No offence, but the work-about solution is flimsy at best .. and not without its' issues. Also, there is the issue of having to actually maintain the filter system specific for this lens (the whole suggested set-up).

On the flip side, the Nikon range of lenses ... 17-35 AF-S, 24-70 AF-S, 70-200 AF-S and the 80/1.4 .. they all use the same filter thread size 77ø .. which makes them a joy to use.

To have to keep a whole rig especially for the one lens, as fantastic a lens as it may be, is just not practical. Add to that, results come out with not so perfect, makes me wonder why bother.

Frankly, and I put this down to my lack of knowledge & skills, I don't know how a good landscape is shot without a circular polariser and ND filters :shrug:; even in sand-dunes, the salt grains in the sand reflect too much light, a CP is a must; but then again, I am sure it's my lack of skill!

Again, thank you for the links :)
 
Wail said:
Thank you for the links. I have read them earlier, when you originally posted them.

No offence, but the work-about solution is flimsy at best .. and not without its' issues. Also, there is the issue of having to actually maintain the filter system specific for this lens (the whole suggested set-up).

On the flip side, the Nikon range of lenses ... 17-35 AF-S, 24-70 AF-S, 70-200 AF-S and the 80/1.4 .. they all use the same filter thread size 77ø .. which makes them a joy to use.

To have to keep a whole rig especially for the one lens, as fantastic a lens as it may be, is just not practical. Add to that, results come out with not so perfect, makes me wonder why bother.

Frankly, and I put this down to my lack of knowledge & skills, I don't know how a good landscape is shot without a circular polariser and ND filters :shrug:; even in sand-dunes, the salt grains in the sand reflect too much light, a CP is a must; but then again, I am sure it's my lack of skill!

Again, thank you for the links :)
Click to expand...

Wail, I couldn't agree more with you thats why I am researching the alternatives.
 
Wail said:
No offence, but the work-about solution is flimsy at best .. and not without its' issues.
Click to expand...

None taken :). However, to me personally, the lens quality makes all those "difficulties" well worth it...

Wail said:
Also, there is the issue of having to actually maintain the filter system specific for this lens (the whole suggested set-up).
Click to expand...

That is the one thing I would argue with ;). If you shooting landscapes then one of the arguably necessary filters is the ND grad and I just don't see any circular version of it being useful for any landscape shot at all. My point here being that if you will have to have a square filter system if only for ND grads, then why not make it so it will suit all the lenses you have. And for 14mm wide it has to be a pretty large size anyway to avoid vignetting.

Again I reiterate what I said earlier, for me personally, the final solution does not matter as soon as I get to use this lens as the optically it is fantastic. I would be more inclined to use a simple Lee Frost approach - attach glass of the filter(s) directly to the lens using plain old blue tac (did it before and it works very well and simple) - stacking CPL with the ND grad and ND if needed...
 
dalex_257 said:
......

That is the one thing I would argue with ;). If you shooting landscapes then one of the arguably necessary filters is the ND grad and I just don't see any circular version of it being useful for any landscape shot at all. My point here being that if you will have to have a square filter system if only for ND grads, then why not make it so it will suit all the lenses you have. And for 14mm wide it has to be a pretty large size anyway to avoid vignetting.

Again I reiterate what I said earlier, for me personally, the final solution does not matter as soon as I get to use this lens as the optically it is fantastic. I would be more inclined to use a simple Lee Frost approach - attach glass of the filter(s) directly to the lens using plain old blue tac (did it before and it works very well and simple) - stacking CPL with the ND grad and ND if needed...
Click to expand...


Two forms of landscapes attract me .. those in UK (plant life) and those back home (Saudi Arabia, sand, more sand and then some more sand with excessively bright skies).

With either of the two, there is always a huge amount of reflected light. From the plants, dew, water droplets, the shiny leaves, etc. In sand, there is a huge amount of reflection coming off the sand particles .. this is where the CP comes to play. Hence why I don't live, and can't shoot, without a good CP.

Of course, NDs too.

So, while I would love to be able to use the 14-24, and I would love to be able to have the one filter kit (regardless of brand, so long that it doesn't give me odd colour-casts) that would accommodate this lens too ... the method of Lee Frost (Blue Tac) does sound practical, it would still limit the ability to use a CP!

Again, I put this down to my lack of skills and lack of trying to sort something out.

When I was much younger, I was more daring and more willing to "invent" a solution. Now, I just want to shoot :'( .. not too keen on inventing anymore. May be I ought to stop pretending I am so old and get my toolbox out :geek:

For the meanwhile I will stick with the 17-35 AF-S, though I am always tempted to try out the 14-24 ... but I just can't see myself without a CP. It's like asking me to walk naked down Oxford St. :razz:
 
I have yet to use a CPL filter, reason being I am unsure of how and when, or why :D

I would LOVE to get this 14 to 24 filter problem solved, once and for all. Gonna have a bash soon. Too good a lens to sit in the bag.

Gary.
 
I use with my D700 the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and the Sigma 12-24mm. I recently got the sigma secondhand for £300 an ther are no problems with it. I would love the Nikon 14-24 but cant really justify the cost at the moment
 
Wail said:
this is where the CP comes to play. Hence why I don't live, and can't shoot, without a good CP.
Click to expand...

Whilst I understand *why* you need to use CPL, I still don't understand *how* on such a wide lens. My problems with using it especially in conditions you mentioned is that the effect of CPL will not be uniform across the frame or that wide angle. And it is not fixable. So you are looking at your sand/sky to be patchy with areas of the polarisation being strongest to the weaker. I can see it on a sky very easily at around 15-16 mm on crop sensor so imagine what the effect would be on 14mm FX?

Wail said:
the method of Lee Frost (Blue Tac) does sound practical, it would still limit the ability to use a CP!
Click to expand...

How's that? I was thinking of having CPL ring from the same square filter system (say Cokin X-Pro) and attaching it with blue tac to the ND grad once it is in place on the lens. All you do is turn the polariser in your hands judging the effect and then in that position attach it to the ND grad. It is all in that Filters book really - not something I invented ;)

Wail said:
Again, I put this down to my lack of skills and lack of trying to sort something out.

When I was much younger, I was more daring and more willing to "invent" a solution. Now, I just want to shoot :'( .. not too keen on inventing anymore. May be I ought to stop pretending I am so old and get my toolbox out :geek:
Click to expand...

I am not that young either but I think you just got too comfortable ;)

For me it's not about "inventing" something. I have the lens with an excellent optics and the landscape I want to shoot plus the need to use filters, so the only reasonable thing to adapt in this equation is filters - and it's the easiest part to adapt. Having the filters part of this "equation" fixed and replacing the lens with some other is not a solution but a compromise in my view :)
 
I use the 24-70 2.8 Nikkor mainly which is just great imo for landscapes. Feel its generally wide enough but also picked up a Tamron 17-35 which gets used a lot less but still a really good performer. Id say for the price of the Tamron its worth a try for sure.
 
bakedbeans said:
Surely can't be wider than the Sigma which is DC (= no crop)? Maybe I'm missing something!
Click to expand...

;)

DC is Sigma's term for lenses made for cropped-sensor camera's. So a 10mm focal length on a cropped-sensor (for arguments sake 1.5x) would give an effective field of view of 15mm.

Hope this helps. :)
 
sdb123 said:
;)

DC is Sigma's term for lenses made for cropped-sensor camera's. So a 10mm focal length on a cropped-sensor (for arguments sake 1.5x) would give an effective field of view of 15mm.

Hope this helps. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, but what I meant is that he wrote that the 14-24 Nikkor is wider than the Sigma. As the Nikkor is not a DC (or whatever Nikon would call it) lens, on a cropped sensor, it would never be wider. Doest that make sense? Anyway, it's hairsplitting :)
 
bakedbeans said:
Yeah I know, but what I meant is that he wrote that the 14-24 Nikkor is wider than the Sigma. As the Nikkor is not a DC (or whatever Nikon would call it) lens, on a cropped sensor, it would never be wider. Doest that make sense? Anyway, it's hairsplitting :)
Click to expand...

Well i'm guessing it's wider in the sense of having a true field of view of 14mm, whereas the sigma will have a field of view of 15mm on a cropped sensor, i think that's right anyway, but only 1mm in it :shrug:
 
TG. said:
Well i'm guessing it's wider in the sense of having a true field of view of 14mm, whereas the sigma will have a field of view of 15mm on a cropped sensor, i think that's right anyway, but only 1mm in it :shrug:
Click to expand...

You mean other way round. Sigma will be 10mm on cropped (thus UNcropped) as it's designed for it (DC) whereas the Nikkor will be cropped. Maybe I'm losing my marbles.
 
Zeiss Distagon 18mm f3.5

No zoom (obviously!) but sharp, sharp, sharp, beautiful colour and contrast.....oh and did I mention it's sharp :-)
 
80% of my landscapes are with the 24-70mm (which on a FF camera i love to bits) i also have the glorious 14-24mm but find it to be too wide for most landscape shots, but it always goes with me for when that extra 12% is shot, 8% is the 70-200mm
 
I'm another that got a Tamron 17-35 for £150. It stays on the D700 for probably 80% of the time regardless of what I'm doing.
I was looking for a Nikon version, but it was the difference between £150 and £1k. I still want the Nikon eventually though.
 
I'll tell you tomorrow, my D700 is currently on 0 clicks and sat in a FEDEX lorry :lol:
 
I haven't used, or even seen, the Tamron version, but I have used the Nikon 17-35AFS f2.8 since it came out with the F5.

Build quality is old fashioned, forged from iron.
Superb image quality.
smooth zoom and focus rings (two touch zoom)
f2.8 right through (although on a wide, and for landscapes does the drop of 1 f-stop really matter?)
It is light and compact and has a reasonably close focus too.

In short, it is a wonderful lens that I haven't seen a need to replace or upgrade. I did think about the 14-24, I even had one on trial for a week or so through Nikon Pro, image quality sis unquestionable, but the WEIGHT and sheer bulk of the lens makes the handling of the camera go all squiffy. Put the 17-35 on straight after and the difference is immediately apparent, to the point where I gave up on the idea and stuck with the old lens (must be nearly 10 years old now and still cuts the mustard).

If I needed the extra couple of degrees coverage, I would look at the old prime 14mm and have done, but that was a fair chunk too.

Another candidate for the 17-35 solution, to go with the 24-70 (although the barrel distortion on the 24-70 is more than you would expect of alens that gets such rave reviews. The contrast,sharpness and colour rendition though are magical plus it is fastfocussing (so is the 17-35 mind), so you will be able to capture all those rocks and trees and hills that run away so fast.....:thinking:
 
EdinburghGary said:
I have yet to use a CPL filter, reason being I am unsure of how and when, or why :D

I would LOVE to get this 14 to 24 filter problem solved, once and for all. Gonna have a bash soon. Too good a lens to sit in the bag.

Gary.
Click to expand...
I'm going to be in almost the same boat as you soon Gary, as I am soon to be getting the excellent Zuiko 7-14mm (on x2 crop - so 14-28mm equiv) and that too doesn't have a filter holder. There has to be a way somewhow though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top