Prime or zoom for landscape

rookies

rookies

Messages
8,063
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
what do you guys tend to use for landscape?? Prime lens to get good images or telezoom for flexibility?

I am undecided as I've had my eyes on a 28mm 1.8 prime
 
Zoom for landscapes because;

A) If I'm on a cliff top I can't zoom with my feet.
B) I don't need 1.8 glass when I'm almost always shooting f11+

For almost everything else, I prefer primes!
 
As your a Nikon boy which I am. Which zoom you suggest pls that wouldn't break the bank as notice you a 24-70 2.8. Ouch
 
The majority of my landscapes I shot with my Nikon kit were with a 70-300VR and if money no object it would be a 70-200 f/4.
 
rookies said:
As your a Nikon boy which I am. Which zoom you suggest pls that wouldn't break the bank as notice you a 24-70 2.8. Ouch
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get the 24-70 for landscapes to be honest. It's a chunk of a lens!

Are you using an fx or dx body? The Tokina 11-16mm or Sigma 10-20mm on a crop body are both decent and significantly cheaper than Nikon equivalents.

EDIT: That's assuming you want a wide angle.
 
Last edited:
You can and do use any focal length for landscapes, depends what you're trying to achieve. What lenses do you have already?
 
UaeExile said:
Interesting choice for landscapes!
Click to expand...


Not really, it's nice and lightweight, covers a good range, has VR and great IQ - perfect for trekking where typically the amazing views are "over there" and you need to isolate them.

To use a UWA you need to be able to actually stand on the subject which is rarely the case.

I gave up taking my 16-35 on 'big' holidays as it never really got used.

edit: but whatever the focal length a zoom is much more useful than a prime IMO as conditions are typically much less controlled and fast lenses aren't really required unless you are shooting starscapes or the aurora.
 
Last edited:
milster said:
Not really, I use mine a fair bit. I even use my Sigma 150-500mm at the long end.
Click to expand...
I get that, but given that the OP is thinking about getting a 28mm, I think it's fair to say he's not thinking about shooting landscapes from distance.
 
My camera is the D750. Some interesting post here.

I've currently got the 50mm 1.8g and the 105 macro 2.8
 
What the Nikon 24-85 VR lens like??
 
In that case I would be looking at the 16-35mm f4 or the 14-24mm f2.8. The later is very very highly regarded as a landscape lens and I know some very good landscape photographers who have it adapted for there Canon equipment. It is a big old chunky lens and doesn't take conventional filters if you wanted to use them.
 
They are both pricy lens...

But th one I mention is it no good since it can be got at a great price is £200 that the 24-85 VR
 
You would be better off looking at your own shots and see what kind of range you tend to shoot in. Everyone shoots differently so you know your own requirements. Also, as above, you will generally be shooting landscapes upwards of F11 at least so most lenses will be at their sharpest. I started shooting landscapes with a Canon 400D and 18-55 kit lens but still had a double page gallery image in Digital Photo;

View attachment 33467
 
Last edited:
What lens that with??

I know what range like something from 24mm I don't shoot wider than that. That why though 28mm. But then the 24-85 be nice for flexibility at £200
 
Personally I'd always thought from all the hype about wide angle that that was what I need for landscapes (16-35 / 14-24) but in practice my 24-70 has been the lens thats taken the 90% of my landscape/cityscape stuff over the last 18 months, not as sharp as a prime (I do miss my Sigma 35mm!) but its about the same size and weight of the prime and much much more flexible.

You can't go wrong with any of the Nikon "G" f1.8 prime lenses and the 28mm is no exception, its a nice lens a little wider than my preferred 35mm but a decent focal length for landscapes, I'm considering one myself (or another 35mm) for travel.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Personally I'd always thought from all the hype about wide angle that that was what I need for landscapes (16-35 / 14-24) but in practice my 24-70 has been the lens thats taken the 90% of my landscape/cityscape stuff over the last 18 months, not as sharp as a prime (I do miss my Sigma 35mm!) but its about the same size and weight of the prime and much much more flexible.

You can't go wrong with any of the Nikon "G" f1.8 prime lenses and the 28mm is no exception, its a nice lens a little wider than my preferred 35mm but a decent focal length for landscapes, I'm considering one myself (or another 35mm) for travel.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about the 28mm too, but I already have the 35mm Sigma Art. The thought of travelling with that beast isn't appealing to me. Too big, heavy and expensive to lose/smash.
 
Sorry, I didn't see the OP post before @Nawty! My reference to the 400D wasn't to recommend the kit lens to the OP who shoots Nikon. It was an example to show that personal preference for focal length is as important as anything else because at narrow apertures even the cheapest lens can deliver landscape results good enough for a magazine.
 
Mid range zoom for me for probably 80% or more, the other 20% is split between my 11-16, 70-200 and my 50 f1.4

And I rarely shoot at f11 let alone higher, in fact I've shot a whole day on my 50mm at f1.4 before too; but I generally shoot around f4-f8

Good zooms are more than good enough and only the very best primes are better, but its unlikely you'd ever notice a difference in a print these days

Dave
 
For my canon I've got the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non vc. Its very good. You need to be able to zoom because as said you can't always move forwards due to fences, walls, the sea etc. Also once you've got your camera set up on the tripod it gives you the ability to change your field of view without moving the tripod and levelling again.

To me using a prime sounds like a lot of hassle. And IMHO 70mm plus as your main landscape lens is way to big, there's a reason the sigma 10-20 is so popular ;)
 
On a recent trip to Iceland (a country made for the landscape photographer if ever there was one!) I used a 24-120 f/4 almost exclusively, usually stopped down to f/8 or thereabouts. Wide enough to get most things in and fast enough to separate near from far. Not as weighty a lump as the 24-70 f/2.8 field either!
 
I have a 16-35 through convenience really, it can do everything I need bar 2.8 for nighttime work - which I rarely do. I do think the new 20 would be a great lens for me if I had to choose a prime.

But I also shoot loads of landscapes with my 70-200, so I think its safe to say one lens doesn't always do it all
 
Raptor Mike said:
For my canon I've got the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non vc. Its very good. You need to be able to zoom because as said you can't always move forwards due to fences, walls, the sea etc. Also once you've got your camera set up on the tripod it gives you the ability to change your field of view without moving the tripod and levelling again.

To me using a prime sounds like a lot of hassle. And IMHO 70mm plus as your main landscape lens is way to big, there's a reason the sigma 10-20 is so popular ;)
Click to expand...

You are obviously in the world of crop focal lengths, 135mm would be a bit long as a starting point I agree.

As has been said, everyone has a different shooting style and I always make the point that landscape does not equal UWA, the number of uninteresting UWA landscape shots you see is daft and in reality a tele would have unabled something far more interesting.

Several famous wilderness photographers reckon a 70-200 and a small wide prime is all you really need.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Out of interest, why do you shoot landscapes with such shallow DOF?
Click to expand...

At the risk of dragging this off topic - so soz OP if it is :)

I don't believe that every image has to be pin sharp from nearest rock to farthest horizon, so using a shallower DoF allows me to place more emphasis on the elements of the landscape I want the viewer to focus on; that and f8 is generally gives 'enough' DoF anyway when a little hyperfocal focusing is employed

In these two the B&W was shot at f8 and the colour at f2.8

There's nothing 'wrong' with shooting everything at f22 (slight diffraction issues aside) if you want to, its just not my style :)

Dave


TP 1 by DG Phototraining on Talk Photography



TP 2 by DG Phototraining on Talk Photography
 
Thanks for that Dave. It wasn't a question about your skill/style because I'm the first to say that there is no single way to shoot anything, just a passing question :0)

Excellent shots by the way.

Cheers
Steve
 
stevelmx5 said:
Thanks for that Dave. It wasn't a question about your skill/style because I'm the first to say that there is no single way to shoot anything, just a passing question :0)

Excellent shots by the way.

Cheers
Steve
Click to expand...


I merely took it as a query that suited a proper answer :)

Cheers

Dave
 
Landscape for me includes cityscapes and seascapes.If I were to design an ideal lens for that it would be an 8-80mm (on crop sensor) f5.6, which would be good enough in edge to edge sharpness to shoot for preference always at f8. I'd like to say f5.6 but that might be reaching a bit on a 10X zoom.

But to be practical for best quality with today's technology I'd probably have to settle for an 8-16mm, a 16-35mm, and a 35-70mm.
 
DG Phototraining said:
At the risk of dragging this off topic - so soz OP if it is :)

I don't believe that every image has to be pin sharp from nearest rock to farthest horizon, so using a shallower DoF allows me to place more emphasis on the elements of the landscape I want the viewer to focus on; that and f8 is generally gives 'enough' DoF anyway when a little hyperfocal focusing is employed

In these two the B&W was shot at f8 and the colour at f2.8

There's nothing 'wrong' with shooting everything at f22 (slight diffraction issues aside) if you want to, its just not my style :)

Dave


TP 1 by DG Phototraining on Talk Photography



TP 2 by DG Phototraining on Talk Photography
Click to expand...


They look fantastic what lens were you using for those?
 
So u a canon set up?
 
rookies said:
So u a canon set up?
Click to expand...

Are you after a SLAP ??? :D

lol

Nikon - D7000 camera with the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 - its a cracking lens but rather expensive. I picked mine up years ago from MPB (they advertise on TP or at least used to) for 1/2 price as it has a scratch on the lens barrel !!! As if I cared when saving close to £500 :)

Tamron do a similar focal range f2.8 that I've heard good reports about and its cheaper too

Dave
 
Yes a slap lol as it a DX lens :( no good as I need FX
 
Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G is what I'd go for. Either that or just stitch images from your 50.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Are you after a SLAP ??? :D

lol

Nikon - D7000 camera with the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 - its a cracking lens but rather expensive. I picked mine up years ago from MPB (they advertise on TP or at least used to) for 1/2 price as it has a scratch on the lens barrel !!! As if I cared when saving close to £500 :)

Tamron do a similar focal range f2.8 that I've heard good reports about and its cheaper too

Dave
Click to expand...
:mad: :rolleyes: :canon: :p

Edit:
That's the lens I mentioned I have, Tamrons 17-50 f2.8. I shoot landscapes at around f11 f16 but I also use it for portraits and anything else withing 17-50. Cos its f2.8 its really versatile. I have the non vc as advice from here and reviews suggested its sharper then the vc version.And as when I bought the lens I was mainly doing landscapes that wasn't a problem because of using a tripod. I'm very happy with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top