Lens for landscape?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jam
  • Start date Start date
J

jam

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Hi as you can see by my question I'm a bit of a novice at photography. I use a Nikon D5000 and due to replace it at Christmas (waiting to see if any deals come up) for the Nikon D7000. With that in mind which type of lens would be better for landscape. I'm pretty sure Nikon will always come out tops over Sigma. I've asked a few friends which is the better and recieved mixed messages out of the two although Sigma is much cheaper.

Any adice is much appreciated
 
Assuming you are talking about UWA lens - Tokina 11-16/2.8
 
If you don't have a good quality "standard" zoom (17-50/17-70 etc) then I'd recommend you invest your money in one of these before venturing into UWA lenses - despite owning a 12-24 I still find 75% of my shots are taken with my 17-70

Simon
 
Any lens can be used for landscape. People more often go straight for the wides, but a 70-200 can do great landscape and give a completely different perspective.

Currently I use a tamron 17-50 and sigma 70-200. both will take different, but equally great images from the same scene.

Even the humble kit lens can do great scenics, as you'll be stopping down to f/11 or more. No need for 2.8 lenses at all for landscape.
 
Well that's thrown a spanner in my decision. Thanks everyone for your help. I’ve been trying to decide which lens to get, I like landscape photography but find travelling miles to locations difficult due to work whereas nature photography is what I can achieve more easily. I can only afford to buy one lens, I have 18-105mm lens but thought a wide angle lens would produce better quality photos. I already posted a question for advice on the Nikon 28-300mm lens and had good replies. I’ll definitely take all your advice on board.


Thanks again for your help
 
I have a Nikon 10-24 and love it! It's probably one of my most used lenses tbh. :D
 
I've got the sigma 10-20mm and love it!
 
jam said:
Well that's thrown a spanner in my decision. Thanks everyone for your help. I’ve been trying to decide which lens to get, I like landscape photography but find travelling miles to locations difficult due to work whereas nature photography is what I can achieve more easily. I can only afford to buy one lens, I have 18-105mm lens but thought a wide angle lens would produce better quality photos. I already posted a question for advice on the Nikon 28-300mm lens and had good replies. I’ll definitely take all your advice on board.


Thanks again for your help
Click to expand...

Well an 18-105 definitely gives you enough scope to take some decent landscapes, to be honest I'm not really sure what you mean by an UWA will "produce better quality photos".

If you mean it will be a higher quality lens than the one you own then perhaps slightly but when shooting landscapes at F11 etc differences between zoom lenses in a similiar price bracket are relatively small - you'd need to spend quite a bit more to see a significant improvement in IQ .

If on the other hand you mean that an UWA will produce "nicer" looking landscape shots then that's not particularly the case, it's purely down to your composition/subject choice and either lens has the potential to produce good shots

How much opportunity have you had to use the 18-105 for landscapes, much? If not then rather than spend cash at the moment you may well be better off giving it a bit more time and experimenting quite a bit more.

Just my thoughts

Simon



Simon
 
I think your falling for the one lens is best idea Ill tell you now that's not the case.

Having an UWA is ok but not necessarya decent 15-50 will do the job fine then a decent zoom after that its taken me a few years to figure out what I like shooting at and it just so happens to be from 11-24 so I usually take two lenses when ever Im out.
 
Many thanks for that, reading all the post on this I think it would be better to get out and do more landscape before I hand a lot of money over for another lens. I have to say it was a lot easier using Auto but I do find it more interesting having to think more on composition and camera settings.

Thanks a lot all, so glad I joined this forum as a novice I need all the help I can get
 
I have the D7000 and use a Nikon 16-85 as my standard lens very happy with image and build quality.
 
I'm buying a D7000 next month, read so many good reviews on it. I have the D5000 at present but find its not great at high ISO.
 
You need to get out of using auto before you think of upgrading the body anything up to ISO 6400 is enough unless you doing fast action in low light. i rarely venture above ISO 800, but then I'm only taking shots of things that don't move or long exposures.
 
In my experience, the addition of a decent tripod would be the first upgrade. The ability to take steady shots at f/8 to f/11 at iso100/iso200 would ensure sharp detailed exposures.
F/8 to f/11 is the sweet spot for most lenses, and so a kit lens can give you stunning shots.
Another feature of great landscape shots is the light - google "golden hour" to see what I mean.
HTH
 
Taking a landscape with a UWA can produce a pretty boring image. The wider you go the further away the scenery looks. You get more foreground and unless you have something interesting there will make for a very uninspiring image.

People think with UWA you can get the whole picture in, but with nothing at the front of the picture it makes a very boring photo....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lnsklndr/6317763926/

You need something in the foreground to add interest....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69327413@N02/6327396636/

UWA lenses have lots of possibilities, but its not just a case of zooming out and taking the photo as the increased sense of depth can make the photos lifeless.
 
I would agree with UWA, but interms of a UWA, I can recommend the Tokina 11-16 F2.8, although a short focal range, it is a fast lens and sharp wide open too, useful for shooting low light events.

Interms of Landscapes, I have used this lens to produce the following images:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awhyu/6322237253/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awhyu/6288351270/in/photostream


http://www.flickr.com/photos/awhyu/6325549236/in/photostream

You cant knock it, also I know this lens will work on a Canon 1D MK IV from 13mm onwards and on a fullframe at 16mm.


Cheers,

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top