Landscape Lenses

Ian W

Ian W

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,383
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
So I'm looking to take a lot more landscape images from now on having decided that's one of my preferred subjects.

At present, I have a Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM and my trusty Nikkor 35mm f1.8g AF-S DX to go with my D7100.

Question is, are these lenses enough or to get really good, printable results would I be better off trading up the 35mm for say, a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 or Sigma 17-50mm f2.8?

I'd prefer to keep the 18-250mm as a walkabout lens but it's not a deal breaker.

To confuse matters further, my other choice of subject is my family and young son in particular. Would I be crazy to get rid of the 35mm in this case?

Thoughts ladies and gents?
 
Last edited:
The 35 will certainly be excellent, odd length for landscapes on DX cameras but I used one from time to time.

I have no experience with the 18-250 but I imagine stopped down at f/8 or 11 it'll be fine.

I'd be adding a Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 if I was still on DX, loved my copy of it before I went FX.
 
Stu Meech said:
The 35 will certainly be excellent, odd length for landscapes on DX cameras but I used one from time to time.

I have no experience with the 18-250 but I imagine stopped down at f/8 or 11 it'll be fine.

I'd be adding a Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 if I was still on DX, loved my copy of it before I went FX.
Click to expand...
It's the Tokina which I'm thinking of specifically tbh. Only questions are whether I'd regret losing the 35mm or not and whether the 17-50mm is a good compromise.
 
Ian W said:
It's the Tokina which I'm thinking of specifically tbh. Only questions are whether I'd regret losing the 35mm or not and whether the 17-50mm is a good compromise.
Click to expand...
If it is me, I'd trade the 35 if it was the only way of getting another lens. I probably wouldn't get a 17-50 as it would be a duplication of focal lengths you already have, but definitely get a UWA zoom as its something you don't have.

The 18-250 will stay useful as a walk around lens, plus can also be used for landscapes where you'd usually use a 70-200 or similar.
 
Excellent points, Stu! It is the only way of getting another lens sadly. I have a feeling I'd love the Tokina as well.
 
Last edited:
Ian W said:
Excellent points, Stu! It is the only way of getting another lens sadly. I hae a feeling I'd love the Tokina as well.
Click to expand...
The 35 is an excellent lens but if you flogged the 18-250 then you'd only have 11-20 and 35 covered. Not at all flexible for landscapes!
 
Stu Meech said:
The 35 is an excellent lens but if you flogged the 18-250 then you'd only have 11-20 and 35 covered. Not at all flexible for landscapes!
Click to expand...
Precisely. I think long term I may end up with the Tokina 11-16mm and the Sigma 17-50mm, it's really just a which comes first!
 
Have you tried using the 35mm as your walkabout lens? I love the restriction and extra thought you have to put in to having the fixed focal length, and was always happier with the results when travelling with just the 35mm when I had DX and now 50mm on FX.
 
axnxdxy said:
Have you tried using the 35mm as your walkabout lens? I love the restriction and extra thought you have to put in to having the fixed focal length, and was always happier with the results when travelling with just the 35mm when I had DX and now 50mm on FX.
Click to expand...
I have and don't find the prime too restrictive being happy to use my feet to zoom, however there are occasions when a 35mm just isn't wide or long enough to be a walkabout lens for me.
 
Ian W said:
I have and don't find the prime too restrictive being happy to use my feet to zoom, however there are occasions when a 35mm just isn't wide or long enough to be a walkabout lens for me.
Click to expand...

I'd be really tempted to keep the 35mm then knowing how much I loved mine and trade in the 18-250 for the UWA and make do without a longer end for the time being?
 
chrism_scotland said:
The 17-50 Sigma is a great lens actually, personally for landscaping I don't find that I use an ultra wide all that often and a good general zoom like the 17-50 would cover off a more normal range.
Click to expand...
Those were my initial thoughts Chris. It would better cover the use of the 35mm for portraits as well other than the slower super zoom, albeit it'd duplicate the range to an extent.
 
I know this is not a lens at all but something that landscape photographers tend to have is a set of filters. I'm mentioning this as these can be expensive and rather than buying a lens you might want to consider a filter holder, various filters and perhaps a pouch to keep them and other bits and pieces. (Also assuming you have a good and sturdy tripod that won't blow over!)

Lee filters are the bees knees (and price!) and Hitech are good value but still fairly expensive.

In addition, Nik Software (especially Viveza) is very good for processing landscape images and is another £80(?).

I'm not saying "Don't buy a lens" - not at all but just trying to help you with the next step if you hadn't thought about this equipment - in my experience a few filters really do make a difference.
 
EdwardL said:
I know this is not a lens at all but something that landscape photographers tend to have is a set of filters. I'm mentioning this as these can be expensive and rather than buying a lens you might want to consider a filter holder, various filters and perhaps a pouch to keep them and other bits and pieces. (Also assuming you have a good and sturdy tripod that won't blow over!)

Lee filters are the bees knees (and price!) and Hitech are good value but still fairly expensive.

In addition, Nik Software (especially Viveza) is very good for processing landscape images and is another £80(?).

I'm not saying "Don't buy a lens" - not at all but just trying to help you with the next step if you hadn't thought about this equipment - in my experience a few filters really do make a difference.
Click to expand...
All something to take into account, Edward. I'm currently using Lightroom and Photoshop CC to edit my shots and filter wise already have a 10 stopper and polariser.

Of course, investing in further filters would be considered but only once I'm happy with the shots in I'm taking first.
 
Seems to me the sensible thing to do would be to see what focal length you prefer and invest in that, of if you want something ultra wide then just buy one.

Everyone is different, I prefer telephoto for landscape, so only you can know really. Basically, the kit you have is fine if it covers the focal lengths you like.
 
Ian W said:
filter wise already have a 10 stopper and polariser
Click to expand...
Two good choices and the first filters I bought too - some feel this is all you need with the AEB and software blending capabilities now. Just for info, I trawled through a book and ended up buying a 0.6 ND and 0.9 graduating filter as these were the most popular choices for the images - 2nd most popular were the 10-stop and CPL.

Reading your response it looks like the lens will give you more enjoyment :)
 
Nawty said:
Seems to me the sensible thing to do would be to see what focal length you prefer and invest in that, of if you want something ultra wide then just buy one.

Everyone is different, I prefer telephoto for landscape, so only you can know really. Basically, the kit you have is fine if it covers the focal lengths you like.
Click to expand...
A sensible response and one that postpones my urge to buy new gear at least! :)
 
Or shoot pano,s ! You can shoot with the 35mm!

I once shot a 56frame Grid pano that had so much detail in it! But was a single pano that had a file size of 2 gb
 
Mark twiglet said:
Or shoot pano,s ! You can shoot with the 35mm!

I once shot a 56frame Grid pano that had so much detail in it! But was a single pano that had a file size of 2 gb
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea actually. I'd need to try one first though haha.

I assume the software stitches the edges together where they need to be?
 
Have you thought of the 16-85 Nikkor. Great as a landscape and walkabout option. Just throwing it out there.
 
Craig20264 said:
Have you thought of the 16-85 Nikkor. Great as a landscape and walkabout option. Just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...
I hadn't Craig, but if I'm honest I'd kinda discounted it over the Sigma due to the lack of constant f2.8 which I'd prefer if sacrificing the focal length of the 18-250mm.

I'm fairly sure I've convinced myself I'll end up with both the Tokina and the Sigma, it's just in which order I get them!

[emoji1]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top