perfect lens for landscape photography?

Photo works

Photo works

Messages
108
Edit My Images
Yes
so i'm looking at the Nikon 16mm - 35mm F4 or Nikon 24mm - 70mm F2.8
and i just can't make my mind up, any help would be great.

Sorry forgot to say what camera Nikon D810
 
Last edited:
This is my view cut and pasted from a recent almost identically named thread:

Generally speaking a wide angle is useful in landscape photography for recording some interesting foreground feature, such as a rock for example. A good landscape photograph generally includes an interesting foreground, middle ground and background, that's why they are so popular. A telephoto lens is really useful for 'compressing' the perspective of a hills, valleys trees etc. Another general rule of the thumb is that most landscapes are better photographed using a smaller aperture, typically around f/11 - f/16 to create greater depth of field (front to back sharpness). In short, there is no best lens for landscape photography. The same vista could be photographed using two different lenses, the perspective would be entirely different, but that's where knowledge of focal lengths will come in useful so that you can visualise the 'final' image.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
This is my view cut and pasted from a recent almost identically named thread:

Generally speaking a wide angle is useful in landscape photography for recording some interesting foreground feature, such as a rock for example. A good landscape photograph generally includes an interesting foreground, middle ground and background, that's why they are so popular. A telephoto lens is really useful for 'compressing' the perspective of a hills, valleys trees etc. Another general rule of the thumb is that most landscapes are better photographed using a smaller aperture, typically around f/11 - f/16 to create greater depth of field (front to back sharpness). In short, there is no best lens for landscape photography. The same vista could be photographed using two different lenses, the perspective would be entirely different, but that's where knowledge of focal lengths will come in useful so that you can visualise the 'final' image.
Click to expand...

+1
It's all in the eye of the beholder, landscapes can be taken with 'any' lens.

IMVHO a zoom would be of more use.
 
Unfortunately there's no such thing as a perfect lens for landscapes (or any other subjects) since so much depends on the scene itself, the taste of the photographer and many other factors. I've used everything from an 8mm fisheye up to a 300mm for landscapes but tend to stay within the grasp of a 24-120 on an FF body or an 18-135 on a 1.5 x crop body since they're my walk around lenses. I'll swap to the ultrawides more often than the longer zooms when needed though.
 
As the above have said, there is no one perfect lens for Landscape, but what I would say, is that you probably don't really need the exotic F2.8 zooms. Most of the time you are probably going to be stopped down to at least F5.6-F8, and most likely using a tripod, so the F2.8 is kind of wasted (unless of course you are looking for an abstract subject isolation of something close up).

I used to always take my Nikon 16-35 F4 VR, 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 VR II, but found that the 24-120 F4 VR, when stopped down to F5 or so, was every bit as tack sharp as my 24-70, had a longer range and VR to boot. I therefore sold the 24-70 F2.8, and the 70-200 F2.8 VR II (I just wasn't using it enough), and now just carry the 16-35 and the 24-120 which pretty much covers 95% of what I need from a landscape kit. With a semi pro body like the D750, it's even a relatively light carry around package.
 
On the Iceland trip back in March, 90% or so of my shots (mainly landscapes) were taken with the 24-120 f/4 with the 12-24 Sigma being left at home to leave space for a 14mm f/2.8 that came for night shooting (where the extra stops at that width were needed for light grabbing!) The 24-120 f/4 does have the VR benefit as well (over the older 24-70 f/2.8), reducing the need for a tripod on many occasions.
 
I have 16-35F4, 24-120F4 & 70-300VR.... the 24-120 range gets used about 75% of the time, I personally prefer this range for landscapes.. the 24-120 is a very underrated lens too! 16-35F4 is useful to have although it does suffer soft extreme corners so inevitably I tend to crop slightly to get them sharp.. currently considering replacing it with the 20mm F1.8G mainly as I'm getting into astro too... it's well worth adding the 18-35G to your list, gets some great user reviews

Simon
 
Not a cheap option though! Keeping the peepers open for a reasonably priced 2nd hand one but happy enough with the Sigma 12-24 (and that extra 2mm does make a visible difference at the short end!)
 
Nod said:
Not a cheap option though! Keeping the peepers open for a reasonably priced 2nd hand one but happy enough with the Sigma 12-24 (and that extra 2mm does make a visible difference at the short end!)
Click to expand...

He never indicated a budget and asked for the best ;)
 
True but as said above, a UWA isn't always the best option! ;)
 
14-24 is.
 
I'd add my general agreement to the 24-120 range. It's what most of my D800 landscapes are shot with. I also have a Samyang 14mm 2.8 for UWA but I'm increasingly finding it a very niche lens and the exceedingly wide angle captured just looks a bit "odd" for most landscapes, although 16-35mm may look a little more realistic.
 
Hi photo works

Depends a lot on your style of photography.

Having tried pretty much all the options listed above (apart from the 400f2.8 !) I would go with a Sigma 12-24 (I or II) if you want some detail in the foreground or 16-35f4 (77mm filter so takes filters easily) if you want a more conventional UVA to standard look.

Lots are recommending the 24-120f4 which is just too tight for me or the 14-24 which is a classic but heavy, expensive and takes a monstrous filter assembly (same as Sigma 12-24). Some great options for you though depending upon what look you are going for.!
 
twist said:
At the short end only. So you think 24mm is UWA?
Click to expand...

On 35mm and FF, no but on MF, yes! (Actually, Wiki seems to describe a UWA as one whose FL is shorter or equal to the short side of the recording medium, so they reckon 24mm IS UWA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens)

Pretty sure the 14-24 is generally regarded as an ultra wide zoom, as is the Sigma (near) equivalent.

However, this is a diversion from the OP's original question. ;)
 
twist said:
I know, I was replying to Nods comment on the lens being a UWA. When it isnt at the longer end. ;)
Click to expand...

You asked if a 24mm was a UWA. It's not as I previously articulated.

However, as Nod correctly indicated, the 14-24mm is an Ultra Wide Angle zoom lens (without a shadow of doubt) . I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here ?

When discussing zoom lenses in context it's pointless saying it's not a UWA at 24mm ! - the lens is what it is in its entirety. It's a UWA zoom and therefore will have a range of focal lengths.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
You asked if a 24mm was a UWA. It's not as I previously articulated.

However, as Nod correctly indicated, the 14-24mm is an Ultra Wide Angle zoom lens (without a shadow of doubt) . I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here ?

When discussing zoom lenses in context it's pointless saying it's not a UWA at 24mm ! - the lens is what it is in its entirety. It's a UWA zoom and therefore will have a range of focal lengths.
Click to expand...

I know that Nick, read the discussion. It was a question for Nod. Why are you even getting involved? Its a discussion between myself and someone else.
 
Nod said:
On 35mm and FF, no but on MF, yes! (Actually, Wiki seems to describe a UWA as one whose FL is shorter or equal to the short side of the recording medium, so they reckon 24mm IS UWA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens)

Pretty sure the 14-24 is generally regarded as an ultra wide zoom, as is the Sigma (near) equivalent.

However, this is a diversion from the OP's original question. ;)
Click to expand...

If you look at the OPs previous posts it indicates he is buying a D8xx. So we arent talking MF.

The original point is that 24mm isnt really regarded as UWA on the cameras the OP is looking at, so he gets UWA if he fancies it and a WA at the other end of it. It gives him flexibility. But I also see your point re the zoom ref.

It is indeed. Apologies OP :)
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I know that Nick, read the discussion. It was a question for Nod. Why are you even getting involved? Its a discussion between myself and someone else.
Click to expand...

In short, because my point was relevant and valid and this is a public forum which works pretty well.

Just because you quote someone it doesn't mean it's a private discussion. In addition, to the best of my belief and knowledge you didn't send it as private message !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
In short, because my point was relevant and valid and this is a public forum which works pretty well.

Just because you quote someone it doesn't mean it's a private discussion. In addition, to the best of my belief and knowledge you didn't send it as private message !
Click to expand...

Yes it is a public forum, but I quoted his post specifically, creating a discussion within the discussion. Im pretty sure hes capable (as you can see) of coming up with his own replies without requiring your assistance.
 
Last edited:
Wow thank you for all the reply's. I've only just started taking landscape photos and as such i have no style. I've always been a one camera one lens street photographer.
I'm leaning more towards the Nikon 16mm - 35mm F4 and thats just because i have a 50mm F1.8

Guess i'll be heading to Wex at the weekend to have a look.

again thanks for all the help
 
twist said:
Yes it is a public forum, but I quoted his post specifically, creating a discussion within the discussion. Im pretty sure hes capable (as you can see) of coming up with his own replies without requiring your assistance.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people don't come on here for hours. You really should try and relax more. Life really is to short to worry about such trivialities. I've obviously caught you on a bad day !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Sometimes people don't come on here for hours. You really should try and relax more. Life really is to short to worry about such trivialities. I've obviously caught you on a bad day !
Click to expand...

I know, but he did reply soon after my post. I am totally relaxed, we were just having a debate of what seems to be lens category vs focal length category and actual usage category.

I still love you Nick. :D
 
Enjoy whatever you end up with, Photo works.

Oh, and welcome to TP and the almost inevitable diversion that threads often take! (Usually in the form of friendly discussion as above.)

twist, personally I don't regard 24mm as ultra wide, IMO the ultra bit starts at closer to 20mm than 24mm but that's just my opinion. Even Wiki seem to want a citation for the short side of the sensor criterion. However, as we seem to agree, the wide end of the lens(es) under discussion certainly do qualify for the U!
 
18-35mm gets my vote too. I have taken the odd landscape with my 70-200mm, but 18mm is my preferred FL.
 
After much reading i'll be going for the 24mm - 70mm F2.8
I think i'll get more use from this lens

Thank you again for all the help
 
Enjoy it, it's a great "standard" focal range and less restrictive than the UW options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top