Nikon 20mm or 24mm best prime lens for landscape?

hillwalkinggirl

hillwalkinggirl

Messages
4,184
Name
Barbara
Edit My Images
No
Following on from my other thread on what to spend my money on http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=67146
I am thinking of getting a wide angle prime lens, either Nikon 20mm F2.8D AF or Nikon 24mm F2.8D AF to go with my Nikon D40X, and a later or maybe same time upgrade to a D80. I know that I wont be able to use AF with the D40X, but I am prepared to use MF on the D40X but would like the AF facility on the D80. I don't want to upgrade to D200 as the camera is a lot heavier.

The reason for a prime lens instead of a zoom is to reduce the carrying weight when going on long treks.

Can anyone suggest which would be the best choice for landscape, and whether it would be better to get the lens first and the D80 after or vice versa.
 
The best choice for landscape is not a wide angle lens. Those are useful for short to medium range shoots. Not for distant shots: too much perspective distortion, too little detail.
The best choice for landscape – no perspective distortion, plenty detail: very high resolution – is a 80mm to 105mm telephoto lens, on tripod, tilted to portrait mode, pan overlapping exposures, and stitching.
 
Beaten to it. I do most of my landscape stuff with my 70-200 now. (Though not usually panos like DB). Wide angle showing everything gets a pretty dull pretty fast. Pick out the interesting part I say.

As for the second bit, I'd always get the glass first over another body.

Sorry, can't really help with the Nikon questions though.
 
DollyBuster said:
The best choice for landscape is not a wide angle lens. Those are useful for short to medium range shoots. Not for distant shots: too much perspective distortion, too little detail.
The best choice for landscape – no perspective distortion, plenty detail: very high resolution – is a 80mm to 105mm telephoto lens, on tripod, tilted to portrait mode, pan overlapping exposures, and stitching.
Click to expand...

I know that this is the best option normally, but as I will be treking up mountains I need the best lightweight solution. At the moment I take my creative compact up with me, but the LCD screen is next to useless in bright light and the viewfinder is now WYSIWYG. I would therefore like to take my DSLR. The zoom lens adds too much to the weight, a tripod is not an option, and my nifty fifty is not wide enough, and the length of the zoom lens makes for a very unbalanced camera when trying to walk with it around the neck. This is why I am considering a prime lens, as it is both light and short.

Has anyone any experience of using these, which is the best, 20 or 24mm, and would it be suitable?

Jayst84 said:
Beaten to it. I do most of my landscape stuff with my 70-200 now. (Though not usually panos like DB). Wide angle showing everything gets a pretty dull pretty fast. Pick out the interesting part I say.

As for the second bit, I'd always get the glass first over another body.

Sorry, can't really help with the Nikon questions though.
Click to expand...

I love wide angle views up mountains as I never find them dull, and if I need to pick out the interesting part I can always crop it.

Thank you both for your help.
 
You realize that each of those is heavier than the 18-55mm kit lens right? :) And that the kit lens outperforms them according to photozone...
 
Joe T said:
Some opinions here and here respectively. Both seem like good lenses. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks Joe - interesting reading - not so sure now.

Jamougha said:
You realize that each of those is heavier than the 18-55mm kit lens right? :) And that the kit lens outperforms them according to photozone...
Click to expand...

No I didn't realize that - thanks for pointing it out. I would never have thought that 270g compared to 205g.:thinking:

OK has anyone found an easy way to walk along with a zoom lens hanging around their neck. that's what I find really awkward. I put it across my shoulder but it's nowhere near as comfortable as carrying the camera with a prime lens on. Anyone found a convenient way to carry it?
 
I normally use a Lowepro Rezo 20 when going light but that's another 300g so I assume it's out.

For carrying with the strap there is a way that's more stable than passing the camera around your kneck. Put your right arm through the strap then pass the strap over your head. So, the strap goes past your neck on the left side, across your upper back and under your right armpit. This will hold the camera tighter to your body and supports it from a 'V', so there is very little bouncing. (You may need to adjust the length of the strap.) Because the strap has to move there is a bit of technique required to pull the camera round into shooting position quickly, but it is quite doable with a little practice so don't give up immediately.
 
thanks Jamougha, this is how I usually try to carry it but it still argues with my rucksack. I use a LowePro Apex 120 when out without my rucksack but when using my rucksack I have resorted to just wrapping it in my fleece and putting it in my rucksack, but it's not very convenient when trying to take a quick shot.
 
DollyBuster said:
The best choice for landscape is not a wide angle lens. Those are useful for short to medium range shoots. Not for distant shots: too much perspective distortion, too little detail.
The best choice for landscape – no perspective distortion, plenty detail: very high resolution – is a 80mm to 105mm telephoto lens, on tripod, tilted to portrait mode, pan overlapping exposures, and stitching.
Click to expand...



Using that argument - you're better off with a single shot on a 5x4" or 10x8" camera (which funnily enough is what many of our best landscape Pro's use)

In the real world, and without needing enlargements much above A3, then a good wide-angle prime (or zoom for that matter if top quality) makes far more sense

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Using that argument - you're better off with a single shot on a 5x4" or 10x8" camera (which funnily enough is what many of our best landscape Pro's use)

In the real world, and without needing enlargements much above A3, then a good wide-angle prime (or zoom for that matter if top quality) makes far more sense

DD
Click to expand...

So Dave do you think that a 20 or 24 prime lens would be a good choice, and if so which lens do you think would be most suitable for mountain scenery? At the moment I am totally confused. :help:
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
So Dave do you think that a 20 or 24 prime lens would be a good choice, and if so which lens do you think would be most suitable for mountain scenery? At the moment I am totally confused. :help:
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you're confused dear !

I take it you really want something light, so the stitching pano's with a bigger heavier lens and a sturdy tripod is out - so obviously is the huge MF camera

I don't know what your budget is, but a good prime will be cheaper than a good (equal or close) quality zoom, and lighter too

There's not much difference in range from 20 to 24mm, so I'd suggest you pick a couple of such lenses, look for reviews of them, then simply buy the one that's the best quality within your budget - you DON'T need it to be a fast one though, so don't waste money on an f2.8 if there's a good f4 cheaper

If it is a good IQ lens, then even at A3 size you could crop your shot to 50% and it'd be hard to tell the difference (assuming it's well focussed and of camera shake of course)

The beauty about wider lenses for landscape work is that you can include much more foreground detail as a way to lead you into the shot. And at 20-24mm & f8/f11, if you focus about 10ft in front of you, everything beyond 10ft will be sharp anyway, as will everything in front from about 4ft away - which means there's little to worry about regarding DoF

You can get away with lower shutter speeds too and still get a sharp image

(y)(y)(y)

HTH

DD
 
I picked an old, but mint condition, 35mm F2 off fleabay very cheap, it seems that manual focus lenses are not in vogue at the moment, have a look,be patient and you could well get a bargain.
 
fracster said:
I picked an old, but mint condition, 35mm F2 off fleabay very cheap, it seems that manual focus lenses are not in vogue at the moment, have a look,be patient and you could well get a bargain.
Click to expand...

Well there's an idea for you too HWG

As a landscape tog your subject isn't exactly going to run away, so autofocus isn't that necessary really is it

So long as the lens works with your camera's metering, a superb older, non-autofocus lens is a good and cheap way to go

And frankly, even if it didn't work with your camera's metering, a few shots and a look on your rear screen (especially with blinkies on) would sort the exposure out anyway

Nice one Frac

(y)

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Well there's an idea for you too HWG

As a landscape tog your subject isn't exactly going to run away, so autofocus isn't that necessary really is it

So long as the lens works with your camera's metering, a superb older, non-autofocus lens is a good and cheap way to go

And frankly, even if it didn't work with your camera's metering, a few shots and a look on your rear screen (especially with blinkies on) would sort the exposure out anyway

Nice one Frac

(y)

DD
Click to expand...

Agreed. Find a 20-28-35MF lens.

Kjeld
 
DiddyDave said:
Well there's an idea for you too HWG

As a landscape tog your subject isn't exactly going to run away, so autofocus isn't that necessary really is it

So long as the lens works with your camera's metering, a superb older, non-autofocus lens is a good and cheap way to go

And frankly, even if it didn't work with your camera's metering, a few shots and a look on your rear screen (especially with blinkies on) would sort the exposure out anyway

Nice one Frac

(y)

DD
Click to expand...

It is because i`m a tight git............:D

Seriously though, I bought this lens specifically for landscape and the reasons you outlined.It is a "Made in Japan" Nikkor lens,not sure on the age of it nor the specific model,but it is a lovely piece of kit and not stupid money, less than £100........(y)
 
fracster said:
It is because i`m a tight git............:D

Seriously though, I bought this lens specifically for landscape and the reasons you outlined.It is a "Made in Japan" Nikkor lens,not sure on the age of it nor the specific model,but it is a lovely piece of kit and not stupid money, less than £100........(y)
Click to expand...

Age 35-40 years. One of the best MF lenses (y)

Kjeld
 
ksmed said:
Age 35-40 years. One of the best MF lenses (y)

Kjeld
Click to expand...

Wow........:)

If it is that old then I think it has hardly ever been used.
 
have a look at THIS SITE

Bjorn is widely regarded as one of the internet's authorities on nikon lenses. He goes to immense lengths to test the lenses and does real world tests as well as shooting silly test charts.

If you're going to be shooting on a d40 then as mentioned above, you may as well get an older MF lens thats going to be a bit cheaper than the modern AF equivalent.

Just remember though, 20-24-28mm is going to be the equivalent of 30-36-42mm in real world terms of the crop dSLR, so it's not going to be that wide. Especially if you're used to the 17/18mm (24/27mm equiv) wide end of your kit lens.
 
Great site, thanks for the link.
 
Thank you everybody for your help. After reading all the pros and cons I'm beginning to wonder whether just to stay with the lens I already have. There doesn't seem to be anything lighter than my 18-55 kit lens, and I am quite pleased with its performance apart from the fact that it doesn't balance well on my camera when walking with it across my shoulder. A design fault I think. I wonder why camera manufacturers dont put the clips for the strap half way down the side of the camera so that the camera would hang with the lens pointing down? Maybe someone can tell me if there is a reason why this would not be a good option.:thinking:


Gandhi said:
have a look at THIS SITE

Bjorn is widely regarded as one of the internet's authorities on nikon lenses. He goes to immense lengths to test the lenses and does real world tests as well as shooting silly test charts.

If you're going to be shooting on a d40 then as mentioned above, you may as well get an older MF lens thats going to be a bit cheaper than the modern AF equivalent.

Just remember though, 20-24-28mm is going to be the equivalent of 30-36-42mm in real world terms of the crop dSLR, so it's not going to be that wide. Especially if you're used to the 17/18mm (24/27mm equiv) wide end of your kit lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ghandi - a useful link. I'm glad you mentioned about the crop factor as I had forgotten to calculate that.:bang::bonk:

I had a rethink about the 10-20 Sigma but have checked the weight and it's a massive (for me) 495g. Oh well - it looks as if the cash is just going to have to stay in my pocket for now.
 
I do a lot of walking during my photography,mainly wildlife. My 80-400 is hardly ever off my D300 and its quite a hefty combo, but I carry it like this

190608_7967.JPG


Perfectly balanced and quick to get up to the eye if hung off either shoulder or neck.

Works well for me anyway.....:)
 
Hi Fracster - the problem would still be that the lens is sticking out a long way in front, which I find really awkward when walking. It would be far better with the lens pointing towards the floor. I can't see any reason why some enterprising camera designer couldn't design a camera with alternative hanging position. Food for thought.:thinking:
 
I`ve not read the whole thread, so forgive me if you had a budget, but have you conscidered the 14-24, I have only heard good reviews.
 
Indeed, Something fantastic and plastic might be the way to go.


Personally though, I'd go for the 20mm prime and just work with slight loss of wideangleness. You can always stitch 2 or 3 shots together if you want a massive vista but if you're trekking up a mountain weight has to be the primary concern and with views that big 2 stitched shots at 20mm should be wide enough.
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
Hi Fracster - the problem would still be that the lens is sticking out a long way in front, which I find really awkward when walking. It would be far better with the lens pointing towards the floor. I can't see any reason why some enterprising camera designer couldn't design a camera with alternative hanging position. Food for thought.:thinking:
Click to expand...


Its only hanging horizontal because it's suspended from the tripod mount.
If it were hung from the camera body lugs, it would hang downwards, actually, I find there are two ways it hangs from the lugs, one kinda molds to your body or at least hangs in sympathy with it, spin the strap round on your shoulder and its less comfortable and a bit of a liability.
Anyway, only tele's will hang in the manner, light weight wide-standard lenses just aren't heavy enough, I think an extra set of lugs somewhere else on the body may allow it to hang down but would probably add different awkwardness problems.
I think peeps can underestimate the effect their equipment will have on them during a marathon wheeze to the top of a mountain, I don't think you will find a method of carrying the camera that will suit the extremes of hill climbing without it being in some form of non swinging bag/holster/strap thing.
How it fits with your existing backpack is tricky.

Personally, I take a 50mm and a Poodle........:)























huhe04.jpg



...:LOL:
 
joxby said:
Its only hanging horizontal because it's suspended from the tripod mount.
If it were hung from the camera body lugs, it would hang downwards, actually, I find there are two ways it hangs from the lugs, one kinda molds to your body or at least hangs in sympathy with it, spin the strap round on your shoulder and its less comfortable and a bit of a liability.
Anyway, only tele's will hang in the manner, light weight wide-standard lenses just aren't heavy enough, I think an extra set of lugs somewhere else on the body may allow it to hang down but would probably add different awkwardness problems.
I think peeps can underestimate the effect their equipment will have on them during a marathon wheeze to the top of a mountain, I don't think you will find a method of carrying the camera that will suit the extremes of hill climbing without it being in some form of non swinging bag/holster/strap thing.
How it fits with your existing backpack is tricky.

Personally, I take a 50mm and a Poodle........:)


huhe04.jpg



...:LOL:
Click to expand...

He doesn't look like he's got much life in him. I think you wore him out up them mountains.:D
 
He's not a happy bunny in that photo, made him walk the streets of Newquay for 4 hours like that, must have thought he was going again:LOL:

yes, poodlecam street shots do exist, ran the shutter cable up his lead.

:wacky:
 
Gandhi said:
Indeed, Something fantastic and plastic might be the way to go.


Personally though, I'd go for the 20mm prime and just work with slight loss of wideangleness. You can always stitch 2 or 3 shots together if you want a massive vista but if you're trekking up a mountain weight has to be the primary concern and with views that big 2 stitched shots at 20mm should be wide enough.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to get my head around these prime lens. The one I was thinking of getting is the Nikon 20mm F2.8D AF lens or the Nikon 24mm f2.8D af lens, as I think that either of these may be suitable if I stitched them together. What I am not sure about is this. I know that these lens wont autofocus on my D40X, but if I upgrade later to a D80 will they work with Autofocus on that? As the lens is quite short I think that this would be a much neater solution when walking, as I believe it is similar in size though not weight to my Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF lens.
 
DiddyDave said:
I'm not surprised you're confused dear !

I take it you really want something light, so the stitching pano's with a bigger heavier lens and a sturdy tripod is out - so obviously is the huge MF camera

I don't know what your budget is, but a good prime will be cheaper than a good (equal or close) quality zoom, and lighter too

There's not much difference in range from 20 to 24mm, so I'd suggest you pick a couple of such lenses, look for reviews of them, then simply buy the one that's the best quality within your budget - you DON'T need it to be a fast one though, so don't waste money on an f2.8 if there's a good f4 cheaper

If it is a good IQ lens, then even at A3 size you could crop your shot to 50% and it'd be hard to tell the difference (assuming it's well focussed and of camera shake of course)

The beauty about wider lenses for landscape work is that you can include much more foreground detail as a way to lead you into the shot. And at 20-24mm & f8/f11, if you focus about 10ft in front of you, everything beyond 10ft will be sharp anyway, as will everything in front from about 4ft away - which means there's little to worry about regarding DoF

You can get away with lower shutter speeds too and still get a sharp image

(y)(y)(y)

HTH

DD
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help Dave, just a couple of questions if you don't mind. Do you mean that if I set the distance ring on the lens to about 10ft and the f stop to f8/11 then I don't really need to focus anyway. If I then just press the shutter the picture should be sharp. I just tested this out on my kit lens set to 25mm after initially focusing at about 10ft, then recomposed and just pressed the shutter button without focusing, and the picture appeared to be quite sharp. If this is true then I may not have to change my D40x to a D80 after all, just yet. Sorry to sound so daft but I am still new to all this.:thinking:
 
My 35 F2 is "very slightly" heavier than my nifty 50,all the(really) old Nikon lenses don`t AF on any body, that is why bargains can be had..............(y)
 
fracster said:
My 35 F2 is "very slightly" heavier than my nifty 50,all the(really) old Nikon lenses don`t AF on any body, that is why bargains can be had..............(y)
Click to expand...

Thanks Fracster, but I think that I would like to get an AF lens so that it will autofocus if I upgrade to a D80 later.:thinking:
 
A very heavy lens. Not much use for HWG I'm afraid.
Click to expand...




Yeah I forgot the hillwalking side of things, will be too heavy then. To be honest though neither 20 or 24mm gives much wide angle capability on a crop body. I hear sigma do a 14mm f2.8 thats supposed to be quite good, but a little weighty.....don`t know how weighty though.




Mark



Ah wait might be a bit to heavy, some guy on FM says it doesn`t balance overly well with the D40......never mind
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
Thanks for your help Dave, just a couple of questions if you don't mind. Do you mean that if I set the distance ring on the lens to about 10ft and the f stop to f8/11 then I don't really need to focus anyway. If I then just press the shutter the picture should be sharp. I just tested this out on my kit lens set to 25mm after initially focusing at about 10ft, then recomposed and just pressed the shutter button without focusing, and the picture appeared to be quite sharp. If this is true then I may not have to change my D40x to a D80 after all, just yet. Sorry to sound so daft but I am still new to all this.:thinking:
Click to expand...

tis true.

Have a google for 'hyperfocal focussing'

It's a bit complex and scientific for me to get my head around the physics of it but I understand how it works effectively.

Seriously though, get a manual lens. Smaller and lighter and It'll be better IQ than the AF version which haven't been updated since nikon started doing AF.......

Wonders if there will be any nice new primes coming out soon to make the most of the d3. But why would there be when the 14-24 & 24-70 wee all over even the older stuff.
 
:agree:

Yup - wideangle lenses set to a high-ish f-stop and focussed something like 10ft to 20ft away don't need any other focussing as the DoF is so large it'll all be sharp anyway

For the type of togging you're after, I can see no obvious benefit in changing at all from the D40x you already have

If you're happy with the 18-55, just keep that on and have a good wee before ascending the mountain (a good wee or #2 even will weigh more than the lens!!!), and it's a good 'Landscape' range for a lens too

Put your money to good use, like a few weekends away climbing something worth taking a photo from

(y)

DD
 
How about the 20-35F2.8. Excellent lens, might be a little heavey, but can be picked up for around £200 on fleabay
 
I've just ordered my new lens from Microglobe for £237 inc P&P. They said it should be there tomorrow morning or Monday at latest. Really excited now waiting for it to arrive - Thanks everyone for all your help in helping me come to a decision.:ty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top