Landscape lens which one

Mark twiglet

Mark twiglet

Messages
2,826
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I shoot mainly landscapes and when I was on DX had a sigma 10-20.... And the 18-35mm 1.8 art lens which I loved!

Now moved to fx....
Had a samyang 14mm which was too wide and stupid 165mm filter system that was terrible in wind and rain....

Now have a tokina 20-35mm 2.8 which is ok but isn't sharp at the edges.....

So what do I get next?
17-35mm nikon 2.8?
16-35mm nikon f4VR?
20mm 2.8 nikon

I can't afford ziess ....[emoji31]

What else is out there that has a filter thread that's sharp at about 18mm
.....
 
Rotunda Mosta.Curves. by Jeff Wharton, on Flickr

I would recommend the Nikkor 16-35 f/4. This shot taken inside the Rotunda in Malta was at f/4 1/8 sec iso 2000 and it was handheld. Taken with a D600.
 
The 16-35 is an excellent all rounder (except for the f/4 if you want to do astro work), you get an excellent 20,24 and 28 lens in one, with a good 35 and 16 (once you remove the hideous distortion at 16mm).

Plus a 77mm filter ring for using 100mm Lee grads etc.
 
A landscape lens can be anything though, I use everything from a 14mm UWA, 24-105, 105 macro or my 70-200 :)
 
stumeech said:
The 16-35 is an excellent all rounder (except for the f/4 if you want to do astro work), you get an excellent 20,24 and 28 lens in one, with a good 35 and 16 (once you remove the hideous distortion at 16mm).

Plus a 77mm filter ring for using 100mm Lee grads etc.
Click to expand...

Agree. I'd say its a pretty poor 35mm lens (compared to the 24-70 at the same f/l and indeed the sigma art 35) and mediocre at 16 but sings properly from 19-28mm. Indeed its sharper at 24mm than my 24mm pce (even when its centred). At 16mm the c/a is horrific and sharpness ok.

At 18mm its acceptable on the D800.

For more budget conscious shooters the 18-35 nikkor is a good bet
 
Last edited:
Does the 16-35 f4 goto 16mm with Lee filter holder fitted or can you see it at edge of frame?
 
ST4 said:
Agree. I'd say its a pretty poor 35mm lens (compared to the 24-70 at the same f/l and indeed the sigma art 35) and mediocre at 16 but sings properly from 19-28mm. Indeed its sharper at 24mm than my 24mm pce (even when its centred). At 16mm the c/a is horrific and sharpness ok.

At 18mm its acceptable on the D800.

For more budget conscious shooters the 18-35 nikkor is a good bet
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with most of that, the D750 is a little more forgiving so the 16 and 35 end are a little more forgiving.

The corner sharpness is indeed spot on around 24mm!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Mark twiglet said:
Does the 16-35 f4 goto 16mm with Lee filter holder fitted or can you see it at edge of frame?
Click to expand...
Yeah I have plenty of 16mm shots with a filter holder and polariser with nothing more than a little shaded vignetting in the corners which is easily removed in post.
 
That's ok then! It's just on dx with a sigma 10-20 I couldn't go wider than 14mm with the holder on without it being in the frame!

I figured with 14mm on a dx it would be about 20mm fx!
 
Last edited:
The 16-35 is a great lens, but do you need VR and f4 for landscapes? Its also quite high a price given that it has these features, which also makes it heavy to carry around. When I was looking for this lens for my D800 I ended up going for the 18-35 which is very sharp. It doesn't have the VR or constant f4, but its lighter so great to carry around and about half the price!

Simon
 
SAuchterlonie said:
The 16-35 is a great lens, but do you need VR and f4 for landscapes? Its also quite high a price given that it has these features, which also makes it heavy to carry around. When I was looking for this lens for my D800 I ended up going for the 18-35 which is very sharp. It doesn't have the VR or constant f4, but its lighter so great to carry around and about half the price!

Simon
Click to expand...

I toyed with the 18-35 and had it had the coating the 16-35 has I would have gone with it instead.
 
ST4 said:
I toyed with the 18-35 and had it had the coating the 16-35 has I would have gone with it instead.
Click to expand...

I've never noticed that it didn't have the coating to be honest and the lack of it certainly hasn't shown up in any of my photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
The coating just renders it better at flare resistance and slightly more contrasty but tbh its probably the better value lens.
Click to expand...

Ah, never have problem with flare when shooting landscapes. Micro contrast would be a plus side, but this can also be dependant on the camera and can always be boosted in post, if required.
 
SAuchterlonie said:
Ah, never have problem with flare when shooting landscapes. Micro contrast would be a plus side, but this can also be dependant on the camera and can always be boosted in post, if required.
Click to expand...

Depends if you shoot into strong light sources. Microcontrast is easily fixed with definition/structure but the coating on this lens means there is NO flares even shooting into lights like this.

_DSC6656 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

In saying that I've not tried an 18-35 and if it can resist flare as well as this, its got to be a shout.
 
I had a play with a d750 with a 16-35 f4 VR today! WOW!
 
Welcome to the "WIDE" world!

Even when i started in late 2005 and 2006 i went with 10-22 and Canon 16-35mm f2.8, and this UWA became like a soul for my photography, i just sold that beloved Canon 16-35 2.8 mk1 and got Tamron 15-30 which is un-open, un-boxed waiting to be tested and used, but i am not yet getting back to photography and i didn't get a filter holder for it although i already have larger filters.
 
Is the Carl zeiss 18mm 3.5 distatron worth the money or is the 20mm 1.8 near to it in sharpness
 
Mark twiglet said:
Is the Carl zeiss 18mm 3.5 distatron worth the money or is the 20mm 1.8 near to it in sharpness
Click to expand...

Not used the zeiss though I've used a couple of their other wides. I did like the zeiss lenses but it was more for the joy of using such a finely engineered lump rather than neccessarily the optical quality. They do produce great images but I'm not sure that they're out there in a league of their own. The Nikon 20mm is an absolute beauty though. A bit plasticky but that makes it light and the results are just superb. I guess the Sigma 20mm 1.4 is worth pondering too.
 
Last edited:
Lol I didn't think of the sigma ..... Omg too much chooce
 
Nope!!! Won't take my 100mm Lee filters so I'm OUT!!
 
I would go with Nikon 20 1.8g it takes 77 lees too

For me landscapes you need every bit of light especially sunsets etc so the faster the better
 
Apologies to Mark for jumping in on his thread but it is to do with the Nikon 16-35 lens that is mentioned.

I have and use the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 for the landscape photography I do and have been wondering if adding the 16-35 lens to my bag would give me much extra on the wide angle side. On paper there is not a lot of difference in 16mm and 24mm. Would this give me any extra?

I did originally look at the Nikon 14-24 but buying an extra (Lee 150mm) filter system made it an expensive option.
 
Last edited:
Kennett said:
Apologies to Mark for jumping in on his thread but it is to do with the Nikon 16-35 lens that is mentioned.

I have and use the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 for the landscape photography I do and have been wondering if adding the 16-35 lens to my bag would give me much extra on the wide angle side. On paper there is not a lot of difference in 16mm and 24mm. Would this give me any extra?

I did originally look at the Nikon 14-24 but buying an extra (Lee 150mm) filter system made it an expensive option.
Click to expand...

I have the 24-70 and 16-35. The 16-35 is great from 20-28mm and the 24-70 good from 28 onwards. 24-70 at the short end fringes badly and isn't as sharp as the 16-35 at the same focal length. Conversely by 29-35mm the performance of the 16-35 falls off somewhat so the 24-70 is the one to use from there.
 
I'm going 20mm 1.8!
 
Thanks to Steve for the great explanation of the differences in the two lenses and to everyone for all the help. Apologies again to Mark for jumping into his thread.
 
Kennett said:
Thanks to Steve for the great explanation of the differences in the two lenses and to everyone for all the help. Apologies again to Mark for jumping into his thread.
Click to expand...


No worries.....
 
I've got a tokina 20-35 on full frame and it's quite good!
 
16-35mm f/4 or 20mm f/1.8. Zoom or prime choice really. IQ on the 16-35 is slightly smarter than the 17-35 but the 17-35 is obviously a little faster. Shooting mostly from a tripod that shouldn't matter in most cases.
 
I'm a Canon user so I can't comment on the specific lenses that you mentioned, but I typically use a 16-35 and find it to be appropriate for many landscape shots.
 
20mm 1.8 would be my choice as it's sharper than a pin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top