Lens for landscape?

M

mercurius

Suspended / Banned
Messages
997
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently own Nikon lenses (18-70 and 18-200VR) and I am looking to upgrade my D70 to a D90 shortly. I am wondering whether I also need to look at another lens for landscape work.

What would lenses would you recommend for landscapes? Or are my current lenses good enough for this type of work?

Thanks,
 
Hmmmm... Can... Worms comes to mind. :p

What sort of landscape do you want to shoot? Some kind of standard zoom would probably be the best, maybe something like the Sigma (or nikon) 24-70 or the Tmron 17-50? Or if you want wide then the Tokina 12-24, however wide isn't always good for landscapes... I've also used a 300 f/4 a few times for landscapes too so maybe something like a 70-200 would suit?

I may look like i'm taking the pee, but in reality I'm being serious, landscape can mean many different lenses and both your lenses you have now will be fine focal length wise in most situations.
 
D40 - sold my kit 18-55 DX and got a Sigma 17-70mm and found that's wide enough >for me<

have a look at the Ken Rockwell site "Using UWA"

about the telephoto comment - I read somewhere a chap always shots long as he prefers the sun to be closer
 
If you want wide, the Sigma 10-20mm is great, but UWA is not always as easy to make the most of as you imagine.

Like John, I'm an ardent fan of the Sigma 17-70mm - shot below taken with it just on Saturday at 70mm, which just goes to show that wide is not always required...

16h1efa.jpg
 
Totally agree with Dek. I personally don't feel the need for ultra wide as it seems to just leave you with a shot of lots of little things in the distance. 18mm is plenty wide enough for most things and you can always stitch a few together if you want a pano.
I used the Nikon 18-70mm for a good while and found it to be a cracking little lens and really sharp.

Andy

Oh and Dek that is a stunning shot. :thumbs:
 
I'm sure you'll get plenty of suggestions but in all honesty - you should be able to get good landscape shots with the lenses you have.

There's always exceptions but for a lot of landscape photography you don't need fast lenses as you'll be using small apertures / longer exposures and hopefully a tripod.

I sometimes (not often) use a 10-20mm but find the 17 end of my standard lens wide enough - even on a crop.
 
Derek said...
"If you want wide, the Sigma 10-20mm is great, but UWA is not always as easy to make the most of as you imagine."

also you're talking of £400-500 aboutish
if you are buying a D90 and a decent tripod now - perhaps wait to see what the 17/18mm WONT give you

also suggest a Cokin adapter [wide-angle if you're around 17/18mm -only holds 1 filter]
and a 0.6 2-stop soft Graduated ND filter to get started
 
Thanks to everyone for your sensible advice. I think I'll stick with what I've got.

Yardbent wrote:
also suggest a Cokin adapter [wide-angle if you're around 17/18mm -only holds 1 filter]
and a 0.6 2-stop soft Graduated ND filter to get started
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about filters and would be grateful if you could expand a bit on your reply. What would I need to fit a filter to my Nikon 18-200 VR which has a 72mm diameter. Is it just the Cokin adapter and then the filter? Is there a specific adapter for 72 mm lenses and does it need to be of a specific width to accommodate the '18' end of the 18-200 range to avoid vignetting?

Why did you suggest that specific graduated ND filter?
 
mercurius said:
. What would I need to fit a filter to my Nikon 18-200 VR which has a 72mm diameter.
Is it just the Cokin adapter and then the filter?
Is there a specific adapter for 72 mm lenses and does it need to be of a specific width to accommodate the '18' end of the 18-200 range to avoid vignetting?
Why did you suggest that specific graduated ND filter?
Click to expand...

ok ignore if you know this -

the "cokin" or similar system consists of 3 bits

the filter
a holder for that filter
a fitting called an "adapter" to fit the holder to your lens

so, working backwards
you buy a 72mm adapter [eBay] and screw into the filter thread
you buy a holder to suit filter size [more later] and slide onto adapter
holders have 3 slots to hold 3 filters
this makes then "thick" so a wide-angle adapter is available so you dont vignette at 18mm - the WA holder only holds 1 filter
then you buy a filter - and chaos begins cos there are a zillion available

so time to do some Google searching
there are 3 sizes/widths A P and Z
you will need "p" series for your lens i think
thus you buy a "p" series holder

I'm just beginning - here's where i got sofar

a ND filter - this cuts down light across the WHOLE frame - loved by togs to slow down lovely rivers so they look like milk......:gag::lol:
the higher the number the more light it cuts
or Grad ND used to cut back the exposure in the sky usually
you slide the filter up/down in the holder to match the horizon
on landscapes use a soft grad to blend with the hills
on seascapes can use a hard grad which cuts right across the horizon

grads are designated 0.3 = 1stop, 0.6 = 2 stops, 0.9 = 3stops
i just started off with a couple of 0.6 grads

hope that helps...............:wave:
 
Amp34 said:
I may look like i'm taking the pee, but in reality I'm being serious, landscape can mean many different lenses and both your lenses you have now will be fine focal length wise in most situations.
Click to expand...

I agree. For some reason people these days (grumpy old man phrase) seem to believe the only lens for a "landscape" is a wide or super-wide.....
 
jerry12953 said:
I agree. For some reason people these days (grumpy old man phrase) seem to believe the only lens for a "landscape" is a wide or super-wide.....
Click to expand...

another grumpy old man here

in my days a 24mm on 35mm film was considered a choice landscape lens

well that's about 16mm on DX innit
 
A superwide is a very creative thing to use, it gives you options that other lenses simply don't allow. To use one just for landscape would be to limit it's use.
 
woof woof said:
A superwide is a very creative thing to use, it gives you options that other lenses simply don't allow. To use one just for landscape would be to limit it's use.
Click to expand...

agreed
have a look at the Ken Rockwell site "Using UWA"...."link"
 
I tried a Sigma 10-20 for a while but as others have mentioned I didn't find it as useful as expected for landscapes - I've now sold it.

My main lens is now a Pentax 17-70, ideal focal range IMHO. I previously used the Sigma 17-70 which I rated highly, the Pentax just betters it for colour/contrast rendition but the Sigma is a very good lens

Simon
 
The answer to this question is simple - go out and shoot what you want to shoot and when you find the lenses you have cannot provide the picture you're after then you'll know exatly what focal length you need to go and buy for your sort of picture! No-one else can really answer this for you!
 
If I were to go to a D90 I'd just stick with the 18-70, get some very nice images from that. Both of these shots taken on a D70 with the 18-70

ascent.jpg

bridgesundown.jpg
 
mercurius said:
What would lenses would you recommend for landscapes? Or are my current lenses good enough for this type of work?
Click to expand...
I would say that depends on what you would like to achieve in the respective photograph. The tele-end of the spectrum will allow you to emphasize size differences, e.g. a small little village at the base of a massive mountain, whilst wide-angle lenses allow the distortion of proportions. For the latter it is more interesting to get very close to things though.
 
Yardbent,

Thank you that's a really helpful explanation of the mysteries of filters. Many thanks for taking the trouble to go into this level of detail.

PaulStat,

Stunning shots of the Clifton Suspension Bridge - thanks for sharing them. I drive past the bridge to and from my way to work, but you've made me see it afresh.

Thanks once again to all for sharing your thoughts on this.
 
Andysnap said:
Totally agree with Dek. I personally don't feel the need for ultra wide as it seems to just leave you with a shot of lots of little things in the distance. 18mm is plenty wide enough for most things and you can always stitch a few together if you want a pano.
I used the Nikon 18-70mm for a good while and found it to be a cracking little lens and really sharp.

Andy

Oh and Dek that is a stunning shot. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:agree:

you need it wide but not too wide,

I use an 18 -200 on the DSLR and 28-80 on the film SLR :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top