and the site receives a small commission
Beginner Wide angle lens for D700
- Thread starter Stevied
- Start date
- Messages
- 255
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would recommend a 24mm F1.8 prime if its your only wide angle as anything even more wide may be too wide for some scenarios. However if you don't mind the size the 16-35mm (I own) or 17-55mm (i haven't used one myself) would both be good versatile options and compliment the lenses you already own quite nicely.
If you only want the lens for landscapes I wouldn't go prime I would go 16mm - 35mm - it is a versatile lens that is perfect for landscapes. Prime lenses are best used when you need a fast lens, i.e. wide aperture, which isn't the case with landscape photography (where maximizing the DOF is often key). Many people seem to think that prime lenses have better image quality than zoom lenses, and whilst this may be true you are gong to have to go pixel peeping to see it. The image quality of the 16mm - 35mm zoom lens is awesome, and I guarantee you won't be disappointed with it.
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You already have a 50.... the 'normal' FoV 'standard' for 24x36mm film/sensor, which, give or take not a lot, isn't far off the coverage of most 'standard' lenses, whether that was a 50 on 35mm film, or an 80 on a 6x6 MF or 105 on 6x9 MF... seems like a pretty good start to me!
It's a slightly curious premise, a prime for Landscape. On Full Frame, something in the 28-70 order is probably about ideal, and suggestion of the Nkkor 24-70, sounds like as good a bet as any other.
Primes, demanded a discipline to frame with your feet, and the 50's were oft applauded for encouraging that, NOT grabbing such a wide field of view, begging you find the interest in it, and work to frame it.. of you check some of the 'master-class' comments by Ansel Adams & Co, he particularly vaunted the use of a 'standard' angle lens; other's similarly spurned wide's, and or exploited cropping in the printing.
Way back, I built up a 'period' all prime outfit, around an old Sigma MK1 M42 screw fit body; lacking meter-coupled automation, or any other significant easements, it was 'slo-foto' methodology, taking my time, and being a bit more considered, and landscape was more it's forte... BUT, little XA2 compact with fixed 35mm mild wide/standard, took far more landscapes.... if for little other reason than because it slipped in my pocket, and was a darn sight less wheeze-making to lug up a hill, than the all-metal Sigma and a bag full of primes!
As a one and only, keep the mass and bulk down 'prime'? Well, my faithful old XA2, and my Konica C35, or the old mans Minox 35, beg suggestion that a 35mm lens, is a pretty darn versatile thing, and FoV a pretty good compromise. But it IS a compromise.. 28/29/30 gives you that bit more margin, and crop-space; 50 gives more tight to do it in camera, and a zoom, covering the lot all the way to 70 or 80mm, even more... BUT you are stepping away from primes.... which for Landscape, may be no great loss, when wider lenses at, usually longer for landscape, near infinity, focus settings will tend to give a greater DoF anyway, and usual desire for that in the genre can make prmes usually faster, DoF shrinking, apertures a little redundant.
I wouldn't be too fussed about going ultra-wide, for landscapes. UWA's are better at opening up small spaces than cramming in lost of real estate from big ones, and tendancy is that more wide packs in more boring, rather than more interest, that they shrink into obscurity at reproduction sizes.
On 35mm film, 28-70 was probably my most used, stays on the front, go-to lens, a-n-d, for Landscape, more often used at the longer end of the range, to concentrate attention on the interest 'in' a scene, rather than try and pack in the whole lot... I would usually shoot a bit on the wide-side to give some margin to crop to paper-size in printing, but I have taken some nice landscapes with a 70-210, quite a few at the longer end, and still cropped to proportion in printing, and captured more of the drama and impact of the scene I saw, than with a wide, shrinking the shout to a wisper, in repro.
So? You already have a prime that is pretty well suited to the task, and probably what Master Adams would recommend you use... and worry more about that, getting out anings using it, rather than not getting not fretting about what to go shopping for!.. So if you were to reject that suggestion, what are you hoping to achieve? Is a 'prime' necessarily the best way to get it? Is more wide, necessarily going to be all that helpful all that often? Why NOT, a 'normal' range zoom? Covering most oft used range of focal lengths, and consistently one of the most versatile, and most frequently used rages of FL's, not just for Landscape but so much photography, why WOULDN'T you want one, really, if you really have to buy something to add to the bag?
Question begs a few more in the analysis really.. Nikkor 24-70, would, on the face of things, seem a pretty strong candidate, but.. it's not a prime.
It's a slightly curious premise, a prime for Landscape. On Full Frame, something in the 28-70 order is probably about ideal, and suggestion of the Nkkor 24-70, sounds like as good a bet as any other.
Primes, demanded a discipline to frame with your feet, and the 50's were oft applauded for encouraging that, NOT grabbing such a wide field of view, begging you find the interest in it, and work to frame it.. of you check some of the 'master-class' comments by Ansel Adams & Co, he particularly vaunted the use of a 'standard' angle lens; other's similarly spurned wide's, and or exploited cropping in the printing.
Way back, I built up a 'period' all prime outfit, around an old Sigma MK1 M42 screw fit body; lacking meter-coupled automation, or any other significant easements, it was 'slo-foto' methodology, taking my time, and being a bit more considered, and landscape was more it's forte... BUT, little XA2 compact with fixed 35mm mild wide/standard, took far more landscapes.... if for little other reason than because it slipped in my pocket, and was a darn sight less wheeze-making to lug up a hill, than the all-metal Sigma and a bag full of primes!
As a one and only, keep the mass and bulk down 'prime'? Well, my faithful old XA2, and my Konica C35, or the old mans Minox 35, beg suggestion that a 35mm lens, is a pretty darn versatile thing, and FoV a pretty good compromise. But it IS a compromise.. 28/29/30 gives you that bit more margin, and crop-space; 50 gives more tight to do it in camera, and a zoom, covering the lot all the way to 70 or 80mm, even more... BUT you are stepping away from primes.... which for Landscape, may be no great loss, when wider lenses at, usually longer for landscape, near infinity, focus settings will tend to give a greater DoF anyway, and usual desire for that in the genre can make prmes usually faster, DoF shrinking, apertures a little redundant.
I wouldn't be too fussed about going ultra-wide, for landscapes. UWA's are better at opening up small spaces than cramming in lost of real estate from big ones, and tendancy is that more wide packs in more boring, rather than more interest, that they shrink into obscurity at reproduction sizes.
On 35mm film, 28-70 was probably my most used, stays on the front, go-to lens, a-n-d, for Landscape, more often used at the longer end of the range, to concentrate attention on the interest 'in' a scene, rather than try and pack in the whole lot... I would usually shoot a bit on the wide-side to give some margin to crop to paper-size in printing, but I have taken some nice landscapes with a 70-210, quite a few at the longer end, and still cropped to proportion in printing, and captured more of the drama and impact of the scene I saw, than with a wide, shrinking the shout to a wisper, in repro.
So? You already have a prime that is pretty well suited to the task, and probably what Master Adams would recommend you use... and worry more about that, getting out anings using it, rather than not getting not fretting about what to go shopping for!.. So if you were to reject that suggestion, what are you hoping to achieve? Is a 'prime' necessarily the best way to get it? Is more wide, necessarily going to be all that helpful all that often? Why NOT, a 'normal' range zoom? Covering most oft used range of focal lengths, and consistently one of the most versatile, and most frequently used rages of FL's, not just for Landscape but so much photography, why WOULDN'T you want one, really, if you really have to buy something to add to the bag?
Question begs a few more in the analysis really.. Nikkor 24-70, would, on the face of things, seem a pretty strong candidate, but.. it's not a prime.