Lens recommendation
- Thread starter Teagan
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,902
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest "landscape lens" could be anything. Landscapes can be shot to great effect with pretty much any type of lens. Plus you don't give any budget limitations, so your question is quite vague. Narrow it down a bit for us and we'll be able to give much better help 
Perhaps give us some examples of the type of landscape shot you're aiming for, and we can tell you the type of lens you'd need for that effect and some good options.
Ultra wide angles are often used because the focal length lets you capture close foreground details with vast sweeping backgrounds all in focus (it's a superb effect, but more difficult than it looks). But a telephoto can be just as useful for picking out details in landscapes.
Perhaps give us some examples of the type of landscape shot you're aiming for, and we can tell you the type of lens you'd need for that effect and some good options.Ultra wide angles are often used because the focal length lets you capture close foreground details with vast sweeping backgrounds all in focus (it's a superb effect, but more difficult than it looks). But a telephoto can be just as useful for picking out details in landscapes.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,301
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just spent a couple of weeks researching same question; for my limited budget the sigma 10-20 was probably the best, but...an amazing landscape photographer on another forum asked what was wrong with my 18-55 kit lens. A lot of his shots were at 18mm+, and they are fantastic.
I use the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 on the D90. However if you're considering it I'd go for the cheaper f/4-5.6 version as it's got a 77m filter thread size whereas mine is 82mm and not ideal when buying filters!!! The aperture difference is also not worth the extra cash in my view.
Build quality on the Sigma is fine as mine fell off the tripod 2 weeks ago onto hard concrete and only the uv filter was damaged. Focus is quick enough and silent.
I wanted a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 but it was always out of stock. The Tokina lens is highly rated by many owners. I find on wide lens I usually tend to photograph between 12-16mm most of the time so don't be put off by Tokina's more limited optical range - that's if you can find it in stock anywhere.
If you're not sure I'd suggest you stick with the 18-55mm kit lens short term and see how you get on before splashing out.
Build quality on the Sigma is fine as mine fell off the tripod 2 weeks ago onto hard concrete and only the uv filter was damaged. Focus is quick enough and silent.
I wanted a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 but it was always out of stock. The Tokina lens is highly rated by many owners. I find on wide lens I usually tend to photograph between 12-16mm most of the time so don't be put off by Tokina's more limited optical range - that's if you can find it in stock anywhere.
If you're not sure I'd suggest you stick with the 18-55mm kit lens short term and see how you get on before splashing out.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd be wary of an ultra-wide like the Sigma 10-120 or Tokina 11-16. Yes, they're good lenses, but they do kind of back you into a corner composition-wise. All those mountains which look big to your naked eye will be quite small through an ultra-wide lens, and the wide angle means you get huge amounts of foreground in your shot, so you have to put something - anything - in the foreground to avoid it looking unbalanced. Hence the origins of the "put a rock in the foreground and it will be OK" school of landscape photography. It can look very good if done well, but it can also look very clichéd.