What Landscape Lens for D800E

Jase

Jase

Messages
1,622
Edit My Images
No
I've just got a D800E with a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and a 105 Macro.

I've just moved from Canon where I had the above plus a 16-35 2.8, I'm having problems finding/deciding on a lens on the Nikon to which is similar to the 16-35.

My first choice would have been the 14-24 however the bulb front would cause to much problem a I'd like to use my Lee Filter kit on it.

What would you suggest as a very good/best lens to cover roughly 16/18-24/35 bracket ??
 
If you want versatility look at the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR. If you want the best possible IQ from a prime go down the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, Nikon 24mm f/1.4 or Zeiss 25mm f/2 route.
 
You say you had a 16-35 for your Canon camera so why not buy the Nikon version. When I bought a D3 three years ago it was the first lens I bought. It is an f4 lens as opposed to the Canon's 2.8 but I wouldn't have thought you would be using 2.8 for landscapes. It also has VR which makes it superb for low light photography, in churches or museums where flash is sometimes not allowed.
I also considered the 14-24 but as you say because of the front element you cannot use normal filters. Also the 16-35 at £830 is £400 cheaper than the 14-24.
 
You just bought the highest resolution 35mm format camera available.. and then paid a premium for having the AA filter removed from it.... and you're a landscape photographer....


BUY PRIMES.

/thread.

However: The 14-24 f2.8 is the only zoom I've used where I find it hard to differentiate from prime lens quality though. If you really must use a single lens.... I'd get this, and then work out a way of using your filters. Maybe get something fabricated that slides over the hood. TBH though... at the 14mm end it will have to sit close, and your filters would need to be large to cover the field of view.
 
Last edited:
I looked at the 16-35 however I read that it had a lot of barrel distortion, especially at the 16mm??

I'm not a Landscape photographer a such but it's one of the things I like doing so I thought I'd cover my range with a small number of lenses starting off so was looking for a good lens in the 16/18-24/35 range.. I will of course get some primes and larger telephoto's on the months ahead but I can't afford to get everything at once.

I'm sure the 24-70 will do for landscape in the short term but I'd feel more comfortable having a wider range.

Lee actually do a system for the 14-24 in a 150mm format.. it would cost about £550 for the kit and a couple of filters though :(
 
Last edited:
Well, i am not sure you will notice barrel distortion on landscapes but something like a 16-35 and 70-200 or 70-300 would be useful from wide to compression based landscapes
 
awhyu said:
Well, i am not sure you will notice barrel distortion on landscapes but something like a 16-35 and 70-200 or 70-300 would be useful from wide to compression based landscapes
Click to expand...

Irrelevant if you shoot RAW. Most software can apply lens profiles to correct it. All I would be concerned about is vignetting and sharpness across the frame for landscape. Sharpness is either there, or it's not - it can't be added later. Serious vignetting can add noise as it's compensated for.
 
Last edited:
Vignetting on the 16-35mm is a non issue at the sort of apertures you would be using for landscapes, David is right about choosing a prime if youre seriously into landscapes though.
 
16-35 F4, great lens.. my main landscape lens since moving to Nikon a few months ago. I'm not one for the prime argument any more, in the past it was relevant but modern zoom lenses are extremely high quality and at apertures normally used for landscapes you'll really not notice any difference, the main advantage of primes is minimal distortion but for me the wider flexibility of a high quality zoom outweighs this especially as the latest versions of photoshop handle distortion correction very effectively

Simon
 
simonkit said:
16-35 F4, great lens.. my main landscape lens since moving to Nikon a few months ago. I'm not one for the prime argument any more, in the past it was relevant but modern zoom lenses are extremely high quality and at apertures normally used for landscapes you'll really not notice any difference, the main advantage of primes is minimal distortion but for me the wider flexibility of a high quality zoom outweighs this especially as the latest versions of photoshop handle distortion correction very effectively

Simon
Click to expand...

Thanks Simon, that is actually good news.. I've had a look on your site and there are some stunning shots.. if it's not to much problem could you either send me or post a sample image with the 16-35 ?

Much appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top