Best lens for landscapes

merv

merv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
This may be a silly question bit is there a best lens, or possible a favourite lens for landscapes? Horses for courses?
 
merv said:
This may be a silly question bit is there a best lens, or possible a favourite lens for landscapes? Horses for courses?
Click to expand...

Well usually people want wide say less than 25mm on a crop a little longer for a full frame, you want a nice sharp piece of glass and one that captures colours well. Other things to look at are possibly weather sealing but a fast lens certainly isnt a prioity. Saying that I have seen some great "landscapes" captures on longer Zoom lenses, so as you say horses for courses.

What camera doyou have and whats your budget?
 
Last edited:
In short, most landscape shooters tend to favour lenses at the wider end of the spectrum. That doesn't mean to say that longer lenses are never used to pick out smaller areas of a vista but in general landscapes tend to be broad views across an open space. Over the years I've done little landscape work because I tend to favour 'people' shots but when I have done some landscapes and seascapes I have found my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 useful, as is a tripod for sharpness and neutral density filters to even out the exposure of the sky. I'm sure some far more experienced people will be on soon to give better and more concise answers but I doubt that anyone will be able to say there is one 'best lens' for landscape work.
 
Thanks guys for that. I have a Nikon D4 and a Nikkor 20mm/1.8 brand new prime. Then I have a 24-120 Nikkor zoom. They say you getter better results with a prime so am wondering is there scope for say 24, 28 or 35mm?
I am happy to spend on good glass and the 20mm was £600! It does seem very wide and you get a lot of distortion but I suppose this doesn't show in a landscape. Architectural shots would be different
merv
 
merv said:
Thanks guys for that. I have a Nikon D4 and a Nikkor 20mm/1.8 brand new prime. Then I have a 24-120 Nikkor zoom. They say you getter better results with a prime so am wondering is there scope for say 24, 28 or 35mm?
I am happy to spend on good glass and the 20mm was £600! It does seem very wide and you get a lot of distortion but I suppose this doesn't show in a landscape. Architectural shots would be different
merv
Click to expand...

The D4 is a FF so yeah 20mm is going to be pretty wide and get you some distortion at the corners. With Primes its always going to be a compromise (IQ over convenince) but maybe something a little longer like a 30mm would improve the distortion and you can use ur feet to do the zooming :). I know Canon have some great wide angled zooms where the IQ is top notch. Is it just the distortion thats annoying you with the 20mm? Or is there somethign else?
 
Last edited:
80% or more of mine are on the FX equivalent of a 24-70mm and I do use f2.8 often too

I also shoot quite a bit on my 50mm f1.4 and yep, at or close to f1.4

I also have an extreme wideangle a bit wider than your 20mm equivalent, and yes you do either have to accept some bending of verticals (trees mostly) or avoid them

The temptation with longer focal lengths is to shoot things that are far away to save walking !!! But that usually means some loss of IQ because of air quality. Used for foreshortening though they can be useful at times

An ideal focal range then? 24-120 ish - which funnily enough you already have. If the lens quality is top notch then you're already sorted :)

Dave
 
Best. Depends on the subject. My most used is easily my 24-70F2.8, then my Zeiss 21mm (very sharp and contrasty) and then I use my 24mm tilt shift more than I thought I would.

A lens that takes filters IMHO is preferable, although many blend multiple exposures so its not a must.
 
Last edited:
No Donki distortion not a problem for me on seascapes/landscapes. I feel that everything is very far away on the 20mm so always cropping and this reduces quality too
 
I use a Sony RX10 with fixed 24-200mm lens. When I look at my landscape images, and thats all I take, 95% of them are at 24-35mm range. Just occassionally I use the telephoto reach, and its great to have it, but based on my experience, a wide angle lens is probably the most important lens to have for landscape as you will probably use it far more often than any other lens.
 
I have the 16-35 so pointless buying a 35mm prime. Does that make sense or is there a noticeable difference in quality between the zoom and prime? At my level you'll probably say a resounding 'no'
merv
 
merv said:
I have the 16-35 so pointless buying a 35mm prime. Does that make sense or is there a noticeable difference in quality between the zoom and prime? At my level you'll probably say a resounding 'no'
merv
Click to expand...
The Nikon 16-35 f4? It's at its worse at 35mm so I would almost certainly expect a prime to beat it hands down.
 
merv said:
No Donki distortion not a problem for me on seascapes/landscapes. I feel that everything is very far away on the 20mm so always cropping and this reduces quality too
Click to expand...

If you're finding that you're always cropping into 20mm shots, the obvious answer is to use the 24-120 that you already have. f/4 is fast enough for almost any uses especially for landscapes where you'll probably be stopped down anyway. Once you've used the zoom for a while, go back through the shots you've taken with it and see how happy you are with sharpness, colour rendition, distortions etc. (note that converging verticals are NOT a distortion - they're a result of the laws of physics! They can be easily sorted in PP as well.) and if you find the lens lacking, try a prime at the length most used (or lengths) or even the 24-70 zooms to see if they render things better.
 
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.
 
I use what I think I need to, I like the way 70-200 compresses the images, but do a lot with the 24-70, not a big fan of super wide shots so I don't have anything less than that

The sigmas 35mm Is defo on my to buy list when I get some spare cash...

Robin
 
Thanks guys for all that. I note your comments
 
16-35mm f4 for me and I shoot FF nikon. Ive tried a Zeiss 20mm prime but was often frustrated when i wanted to include (or get over the top of) a detailed foreground item like a rock or boat. Ive also flirted with the 14-24mm but the bulb front was a pain when it came to filters etc. Yes the 16-35mm distorts at 16mm (as does any wide angle lens) but if you know how to use it and be prepared to address any distortion in post from time to time its an excellent tool. For landscapes and wide angle lenses I don't think a wide aperture is as important unless you are shooting night skies etc. Its unbelievably sharp from F8 - F11, up there with any other lens in my opinion.
 
windrunner said:
16-35mm f4 for me and I shoot FF nikon. Ive tried a Zeiss 20mm prime but was often frustrated when i wanted to include (or get over the top of) a detailed foreground item like a rock or boat. Ive also flirted with the 14-24mm but the bulb front was a pain when it came to filters etc. Yes the 16-35mm distorts at 16mm (as does any wide angle lens) but if you know how to use it and be prepared to address any distortion in post from time to time its an excellent tool. For landscapes and wide angle lenses I don't think a wide aperture is as important unless you are shooting night skies etc. Its unbelievably sharp from F8 - F11, up there with any other lens in my opinion.
Click to expand...

When I researched it, the 16-35 f4 was regarded as the best for landscape on a lot of reviews, in fact better than the f2.8.
 
I use a sigma 50mm F1.4 as I'm skint lol.
Would like a 16-35 though
 
I just bought the photo guide of landscapes for north wales and a high % of the shots were used with a d800 and the 24 - 120 that you already have
I really don't think you need to spend more money, unless your minted of course :-)
 
It's sounds like you already have the lens that you need TBH.
I would suggest you just get out and do a little shooting using the Zoom and you can always check the most used focal length in the exif data.
Then you can look at getting a fixed prime for the most common used focal Length if you feel it will be of benefit?
Don't forget you can always leave your zoom set at one focal length and try shooting with it Happy shooting
 
I think it depends where you are really, I find longer lenses like a 70-200mm great to pick out details if I'm in the hills and otherwise a 24-70mm is generally my default lens. I sometimes wish I had an ultra wide angle lens again if I'm in very tight areas but generally I didn't like the way it over-emphasised foreground for traditional landscape scenes.
 
I have two fuji bodies (X-E2 and X-T1) and use either the XF10-24mm f4 zoom, or the XF 23mm f1.4 - both are brilliant lenses.
 
good grief, is this STILL creaking on ? Wondered why I got a notification from a thread I replied to in May :lol:
 
Do you use Lightroom? You can analyse what focal lengths you use - and you'll find your answer.
 
Scirocco_09 said:
I think it depends where you are really, I find longer lenses like a 70-200mm great to pick out details if I'm in the hills and otherwise a 24-70mm is generally my default lens. I sometimes wish I had an ultra wide angle lens again if I'm in very tight areas but generally I didn't like the way it over-emphasised foreground for traditional landscape scenes.
Click to expand...

x2. Occasionally 24mm isn't wide enough so carry a 16-35. TBH a 20mm prime would work just as well but looking at EXIF I tend to find most of mine are in the 24-50mm region
 
I've been through a few lenses and shot a lot of landscapes. My vote would be to get the best 16-35/17-40 zoom for your system and a sturdy tripod. You're going to be shooting stopped down for the most part and the diffences between lenses at these apertures is marginal at best. If you want to shoot astrophotography, however, thigns get a *lot* more complicated! If it helps, take a look at any of my photos below and ask me about why I chose the lens I ended up using to make it.
 
For me, the best landscape lens on a Nikon FX camera is the 16-35mm f/4.0. Sure, the Nikon 14-24mm is a superb piece of glass but what really put me off it is the fact that you can't use Lee filters (or such the like) with it. The 16-35mm may not be quite as wide but it's wide enough and can take filters. That's a winner in my book.
 
Bardo said:
For me, the best landscape lens on a Nikon FX camera is the 16-35mm f/4.0. Sure, the Nikon 14-24mm is a superb piece of glass but what really put me off it is the fact that you can't use Lee filters (or such the like) with it. The 16-35mm may not be quite as wide but it's wide enough and can take filters. That's a winner in my book.
Click to expand...
ummm, you can use Lee filters with the 14-24mm http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150 they cost an arm and a leg though ...
 
My lens of choice used to be 24mm primes. Then I got a 16-35 f4. I now almost never use the 24mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
I have to admit, I love mine and its sharper than my 24mm PCE at 24mm. But Sigma Art 24mm and sigma ART 35mm optically will be better still :D
Click to expand...

I'm constantly impressed with the Art lenses.
I've not owned s sigma for many years since I had the 150mm macro.
They've certainly caught my eye again and I will seriously consider them if/when I come to purchasing another lens that fits in with their range.

Would they really be any better at landscape when using a small aperture than say one of the newer top end zoom lenses like the canon 16-35 F4? Wider open is a different story and not comparable.
 
Ross_Curtis said:
I'm constantly impressed with the Art lenses.
I've not owned s sigma for many years since I had the 150mm macro.
They've certainly caught my eye again and I will seriously consider them if/when I come to purchasing another lens that fits in with their range.

Would they really be any better at landscape when using a small aperture than say one of the newer top end zoom lenses like the canon 16-35 F4? Wider open is a different story and not comparable.
Click to expand...

I'd hope so but it would be marginal. A 24-70 and 16-35 are more than good enough for me...when used in their sweet zones. The 16-35 from 20-28mm is tack sharp and the 24-70 really gets going from 28-60mm in my copies


chrism_scotland said:
Do you still use your 21mm Zeiss?
Click to expand...

No, sold it on. It was soft in the corners and couldn't be fixed, well it was but then it went soft. It seemed fragile as I never dropped it but maybe it got bumped in my bag, anyhow, the 24-70 and 16-35 seem nock resisident and perform well. Got the 16-35F4 and love it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top