Best lens for landscapes fullframe
- Thread starter jcdavo
- Start date
chrism_scotland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,958
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It depends I guess, its quite subjective - I'd probably start off with a standard zoom (24-70 or 28-75) but at that price range probably only the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is within it.
You could also consider a prime, something in the 28-35 range, you could get the Nikon 35mm f2 lens fairly cheap or even the newer 35mm f1.8G, 28mm f1.8G is also around that priced second hand.
You could also consider a prime, something in the 28-35 range, you could get the Nikon 35mm f2 lens fairly cheap or even the newer 35mm f1.8G, 28mm f1.8G is also around that priced second hand.
NeilA1975
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,026
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
Sigma 17-35 2.8 is pretty good, apparently. 2nd hand you're looking at £200-250.00.
simonkit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,240
- Edit My Images
- No
Unfortunately full frame lenses are a bit pricey so options are a bit limited.. if you can go a bit higher I highly recommend the 24-120 F4 (avoid the older non F4 version), a used one is around £400/£440. Really useful range for landscapes and very good IQ too, pretty compact as well if you intend carrying it around all day whilst hiking
Simon
Simon
Nawty
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,473
- Name
- Ned
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sigh...
There is no such thing as a landscape lens, there are just lenses - you may as well ask "what's the best lens?" For which there is no answer.
My preferred landscape focal range is the 70-200 length so I would think the 70-200 f/4 would be ideal.
Some prefer ultra wide angle, for which the 14-24 or 16-35 would be great.
One thing though, I wouldn't be putting crappy lenses on a D800.
There is no such thing as a landscape lens, there are just lenses - you may as well ask "what's the best lens?" For which there is no answer.
My preferred landscape focal range is the 70-200 length so I would think the 70-200 f/4 would be ideal.
Some prefer ultra wide angle, for which the 14-24 or 16-35 would be great.
One thing though, I wouldn't be putting crappy lenses on a D800.
Mark twiglet
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
20mm 2.8 is a cheap prime wide angle
snerkler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,078
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
A used 18-35mm G lens would be my recommendation (not the older D lens). Great sharpness, very useful range for landscape and nice lightweight lens but still feeling good quality. Cheaper, lighter and just as sharp alternative to the 16-35mm f4.
Mark twiglet
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've heard recently the 16-35 f4 was rubbish wide angle ! That was my next purchase but I'm not so sure now.....
snerkler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,078
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
It depends on how you view the lens. It's not rubbish, but it's probably not up to the level people were expecting for a lens of this mark/price. Plus on higher end bodies such as the D810 and D750 it's actually 2-4 marks less sharp than the 18-35mm according to DxO. Distortion is quite bad at 16mm but of course things like this are quite easily corrected in lightroom etc. I personally don't think £300 over the 18-35mm is 'too much' of a premium for the better coating, constant F4 and weather sealing if these things are important to you, but I didn't need the weather sealing or constant f4 so decided to save myself £300, plus I've gained a smidge of sharpness. The coating would have been nice though
Stu Meech
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,906
- Name
- Stu
- Edit My Images
- No
I picked up a Tamron 19-35 on eBay yesterday for £80, mostly to use on a summer holiday so I don't have to take my rather more heavy and expensive 16-35, but I am planning to do a side by side test with the 16-35, so I can let you know how it compares if you can wait a couple of days...
Personally I rather like my 16-35, although it is quite chunky for what it is. It's small shortcomings, (already listed) have been overcome by the fact I got a rather good deal on a brand new UK stock one.
Personally I rather like my 16-35, although it is quite chunky for what it is. It's small shortcomings, (already listed) have been overcome by the fact I got a rather good deal on a brand new UK stock one.
Last edited:
Spiritflier
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,802
- Name
- Simon (Prefer 'Si')
- Edit My Images
- No
I can vouch for the 18-35mm G as well... I found mine on Amazon Marketplace for about £470 (I think)... I got rid of it when I ditched Nikon for Fuji (which was an expensive mistake). Now that I'm back shooting on Nikon again, I've gone for the 16-35mm f/4 which is great but pound for pound, probably not as good value as the 18-35mm G.
