Best Telephoto Landscape Lens?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

P

PhotoCT1

New member
Member's gallery
I bought a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR I last year, but I figured out only too late that it has sharpness issues on one side of the image. My question is what telephoto lens is best for landscapes? All the reviews I see emphasize use for portraiture or sports/wildlife. Is 70-200 the best range, or should I look at a 300, or even the 200-500? Since I plan on backpacking with it, I prefer lighter lenses like the 300, but I'm unsure of the versatility in use compared to a zoom. Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
PhotoCT1 said:
I bought a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR I last year, but I figured out only too late that it has sharpness issues on one side of the image. My question is what telephoto lens is best for landscapes? All the reviews I see emphasize use for portraiture or sports/wildlife. Is 70-200 the best range, or should I look at a 300, or even the 200-500? Since I plan on backpacking with it, I prefer lighter lenses like the 300, but I'm unsure of the versatility in use compared to a zoom. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
I do not normally associate telephoto lenses with landscapes, but all of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses provided decent IQ, with each generation besting the last. If you are having sharpness issues on one side, I would suggest that you consider getting the lens looked at. This is not that common for this lens (albeit any lens can exhibit bad behavior due to many different issues). I am assuming that you are looking for a lens that exhibits good corner sharpness. And are you shooting vertical "slices" and stitching them together, or are you shooting a single shot?

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
Replytoken said:
I do not normally associate telephoto lenses with landscapes, but all of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses provided decent IQ, with each generation besting the last. If you are having sharpness issues on one side, I would suggest that you consider getting the lens looked at. This is not that common for this lens (albeit any lens can exhibit bad behavior due to many different issues). I am assuming that you are looking for a lens that exhibits good corner sharpness. And are you shooting vertical "slices" and stitching them together, or are you shooting a single shot?

--Ken
Click to expand...
Hey Ken, have you ever heard of lens decentering? I believe that is the issue my lens has, with loss of quality on the right side (see attached photo @ 70mm f/6.3 1/800s).
DSC_7709-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I do both single images and panoramas, so loss of sharpness on one side makes panos difficult. I am looking for a lens with good sharpness across the whole frame (which is really a base expectation of lenses these days), but really the focus of my question is on focal lengths that are best for compressing landscapes over long distances.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Whilst pano’s are frequently associated with wide angles I actually prefer 50 to 100 mm as I feel the perspective is more natural. As the focal length increases you need to be careful with vibration and might need higher shutter speed.
 
Member's gallery
PhotoCT1 said:
Hey Ken, have you ever heard of lens decentering? I believe that is the issue my lens has, with loss of quality on the right side (see attached photo @ 70mm f/6.3 1/800s).View attachment 14507 I do both single images and panoramas, so loss of sharpness on one side makes panos difficult. I am looking for a lens with good sharpness across the whole frame (which is really a base expectation of lenses these days), but really the focus of my question is on focal lengths that are best for compressing landscapes over long distances.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with decentering, and I was not necessarily implying that you lens did not exhibit it. But, what I was referring to is that this is not necessarily an expensive lens, and is comparable in price to other lenses that are also supposed to have good sharpness across the entire frame. This was why I had suggested sending it in to see if they could correct the issue. You certainly could buy another lens, but there is still the chance that it could exhibit some issues as well.

Are you looking for roughly the same focal length range, zoom ability and aperture? You are not going to want the 200-500 that you mentioned above if size/weight is an issue, and its build quality is not the same as the 70-200's. The 300mm f/4's, old and new, are about the same size or smaller than the 70-200, but I am not sure about corner sharpness. The 105 macro is sharp in the corners, but I am not sure if that focal length will work for you.

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
PhotoCT1 said:
I bought a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR I last year, but I figured out only too late that it has sharpness issues on one side of the image. My question is what telephoto lens is best for landscapes? All the reviews I see emphasize use for portraiture or sports/wildlife. Is 70-200 the best range, or should I look at a 300, or even the 200-500? Since I plan on backpacking with it, I prefer lighter lenses like the 300, but I'm unsure of the versatility in use compared to a zoom. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

In my experience, the all-out best telephoto lens for landscapes is the Panasonic-Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4. Easy to pack and travel with, extremely sharp corner to corner across the focal lengths, ridiculous hand holding capability when shooting with something like a Panasonic G9. You can even get 40Mpx images that are every pixel as good as the D810s if the conditions allow it.

Unfortunately, Nikon does not have such a lens. The closest equivalent in Nikon land is the 80-400 VR2, which in my experience is a bit underwhelming, especially for the price.

I for one traded my 70-200mm f2.8 VR II for the 70-200mm f4 VR as the default landscape telephoto lens. And while I really like the lens overall, often I find it a bit short for the types of mountain landscapes I do. The word on the street though is that FX 70-300mm VR AF-P lens is as good as the 70-200mm f4 VR and well... it gets to 300mm and is cheaper. So it might work a look.

Having shot landscapes with the Sigma 150-600mm C I can say that you wouldn't catch me dead backpacking with it (and remember, this is a lighter lens than the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6). While the overall image compression can be fantastic with such a long tele, you will end up fighting various atmospheric disturbances. Plus, you will need serious support to shoot at decent ISO/exposure times and these lenses are optically focused on center sharpness rather than edge to edge sharpness.

Also, I tried landscape shooting with the old 300mm F4D. It is very very limiting due to the fixed focal length.

An option might be the Sigma 100-400mm C that is lightweight and seems to be consistent in sharpness across the frame and focal lengths, but I have not had the chance to try it.

TLDR:

The 70-200mm f4 VR seems to be the best option. An alternative to it, the Nikon 70-300mm AF-P VR FX. Another alternative could be the Sigma 100-400mmC. Finally, the Nikon 80-400mm but I doubt it is worth the money. The big telephoto zooms are too compromised to work when backpacking.
 
Member's gallery
For landscapes, I wouldn't use a long lens without a specific reason to do so, because it doesn't provide the flexibility often needed when wishing to make the best of lighting conditions. My default preferred focal length would be 18mm.

With 18mm an F number as low as F2.8 can give focus to infinity and the point of focus can be anything from 30 feet in front of the camera to any greater distance necessary. Those settings would also provide the greatest amount of clarity in front of the point of focus.

Substitute a 200mm focal length and to have focus to infinity the F number would need to be around F16 and having to focus around 300 feet from the camera. F16 isn't going to help if light is not great. The Depth of field in front of the point of focus will also be pretty limited.

When I do need that extra bit of reach I use a 24-105mm. At the far end I can get focus to infinity from F4 which is the widest aperture for the lens. Using 24mm gives almost as much flexibility as the 18mm.
 
Member's gallery
" For landscapes, I wouldn't use a long lens without a specific reason to do so, because it doesn't provide the flexibility often needed when wishing to make the best of lighting conditions. My default preferred focal length would be 18mm. "

The thought that a landscape lens needs to be a wide angle is simply not true. Many situations call for a longer FL to narrow the view to an important and/or more pleasing part of the scene. Sure you can get a deep depth of field even at small apertures with a wide angle, but when using a longer FL lens, there are usually no close objects to worry about being in focus.
 
Member's gallery
I'd send the 70-200 to Nikon and get the lens repaired. Is it still under warranty? Meanwhile, I have an ancient 70-300mm VR Nikkor that I use quite a bit for landsacpes, and it's fairly light. Just an option to consider.
 
Member's gallery
aolander said:
" For landscapes, I wouldn't use a long lens without a specific reason to do so, because it doesn't provide the flexibility often needed when wishing to make the best of lighting conditions. My default preferred focal length would be 18mm. "

The thought that a landscape lens needs to be a wide angle is simply not true. Many situations call for a longer FL to narrow the view to an important and/or more pleasing part of the scene. Sure you can get a deep depth of field even at small apertures with a wide angle, but when using a longer FL lens, there are usually no close objects to worry about being in focus.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't need to be wide angle but the advantages are as I laid out. If other priorities are best served by using a long focal length that's fine. As ever it's different strokes for different folks.

As far as "there are usually no close objects to worry about" is concerned it's a question of what's before you. Often something in the foreground could add considerably to the overall effect rather than looking at a lot of repetitive stuff of little interest. When there is something interesting close up wide angle gives a better chance of it being in focus.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
I for one traded my 70-200mm f2.8 VR II for the 70-200mm f4 VR as the default landscape telephoto lens. And while I really like the lens overall, often I find it a bit short for the types of mountain landscapes I do. The word on the street though is that FX 70-300mm VR AF-P lens is as good as the 70-200mm f4 VR and well... it gets to 300mm and is cheaper. So it might work a look.
Click to expand...

My go-to lens "for everything" is the AF-P 70-300 FX. I use it for landscape, people and wildlife (if the birds get close enough ...), and I often carry it as my only lens on one of my DX bodies. Light, pretty good optically, very fast AF. I'm not a wideangle guy and much prefer telephoto lenses for landscape work.
 
Member's gallery
I love shooting landscape with long lenses, getting rid of distractions and focusing (pun intended) on layers in the composition.
my favorite for weight / performance ratio is the 70-200 f:4 VR as many mentioned. like others mentioned I’d have your f:2.8 checked and fixed, it is a stellar lens when properly aligned. I just prefer the light weight of the f:4 for hiking Despite the slight optical compromise.

i really haven’t found 200mm too short but I guess on occasion it could happen... it’s never been a bother up to now. when I want utmost optical quality I’ll pack a prime, either the 85mm f:1.8 or the 105 f:1.4 if I can borrow it. I tried the 135 f:2 D but I found it inferior to the zoom for landscape, so why bother (Of course for portraits, f:2 vs f:4 is meaningful). When I use a shorter prime it’s usually because I know the scene in advance and know it will work - in all other cases I like the zoom flexibility.
i also now have a 300pf which I look forward to trying for landscape but I haven’t had a chance yet.
 
Member's gallery
Not sure I understand a question like “which is the best telephoto lens for landscape? Any tele lens can be used for landscapes and the lens I use for landscapes is the one I have with me. If weight is an issue, I would saddle up with the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. If I will be near my car, I’d carry the 14-24 and a variety of longer glass. Several reasons for longer glass. First, in the field, there is always a chance that some sort of critter will wander by. Or there is an object in a “landscape” shot that would benefit from isolation. Or, I want the compression that a long lens offers. For example, think of “landscape” images you’ve seen from Great Smoky National Park or Grand Canyon or Monument Valley. Wide shots in either locale are boring (excluding sunrise/sunset). The only time I tend to shoot wide in such vast vistas is when I have a compelling subject in the foreground to emphasize.

as far as your 70-200/2.8, if one side is very soft, fix the lens, don’t go buy a telephoto “landscape” lens. The older 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens (for any purpose) and it is one of the most frequently used lens in my kit. Ifbyou are worried about “softness” at edges, frame a little looser and crop out the problem areas, although I have never had a big issue with edge sharpness with my copy.
 
For landscapes I use everything from 14mm f/2.8 to 500mm f/6.6
I love my 70-200mm but probably get more use out of Tamron 24-70mm on landscapes to be honest.
<-not a pro
 
Member's gallery
I got my 70-200mm f/2.8 FL lens back from Nikon a day ago as I had to send it in for alignment and calibration problems. It cost me $440 in total but the lens now performs as it should. My mistake in buying a used copy of a zoom lens like this where any imaging issues are magnified. This is also where my manual AF fine tuning is very helpful in illuminating any deficiencies with a lens before I go out in the field with it. Even with a Z camera I would recommend doing this to expose any faults with the lens or sensor alignment. These are all mass produced items and quality control is often absent.
 
Member's gallery
I'd opt to have it repaired, it's a great lens. But - if you're looking for something else, I've heard tons of great things about Sigma's 70-200 2.8 Sports lens, if I were staying with F lenses / dslr's, I'd likely have one (and I generally never go for 3rd party glass).

And yes the 70-200 is an incredibly useful range for landscape - just as important as wider lenses IMO.
 
Member's gallery
PhotoCT1 said:
I bought a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR I last year, but I figured out only too late that it has sharpness issues on one side of the image. My question is what telephoto lens is best for landscapes? All the reviews I see emphasize use for portraiture or sports/wildlife. Is 70-200 the best range, or should I look at a 300, or even the 200-500? Since I plan on backpacking with it, I prefer lighter lenses like the 300, but I'm unsure of the versatility in use compared to a zoom. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
70-200 FL hands down, very ight amzingly sharp clear and accurate colour. Best 70-200 2.8 Nikon has ever made for FX.
for dramatic creative wide shots the 14-24 2.8 is still stunning and hard to pass up.
for primes i use the 300 2.8 VR II for everything including model shoots.
For all round versatility yes don't laugh, the 28-300 if your not obsessed with pixel peeping, but defiantly the 70-200 2.8 FL, i do a lot of landscapes.
I just did a 3000klm road trip and i used No 1, my smart phone, no 2 the 70-200 FL, thirdly the 24-70 2.8, and the stunning 14-24 .....for those tight and creative shots.
Remeber, 20% is the gear 80% is you........

As to your existing lens with the one sided issue, take it back to Nikon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSD
Member's gallery
RickW said:
I just noticed this on PetaPixel site. Interesting take on long focal lengths v. Wide for landscapes.

petapixel.com

Why You Should Use a 100-400mm Lens for Landscape Photos

Get in there for that close-up.
petapixel.com petapixel.com
Click to expand...



I find using a long lens for landscape is very very good, I use the 300 2.8 VR II but the favorite is the 70-200 FL anywhere between 120-200mm and on the D850 is crops just so well as the lens is just stunning......... so you could say I have the equivalent of 70-300 or even 70-400 and still F2.8 F4 light gathering capacity etc, my other lens is the 100mm F2 Zeiss macro.

With the 70-200 or 300 2.8 I get this compression effect of the image that looks different.

I often travel and just take the 28-300 but on the D850 its not bad, very versatile and I can cut in or cut out parts of a scene so easily, it excels in composition over pixel peeping sharpness. It is acceptably sharp enough, great colour but has so much versatility that overrules so many other things.

I agree with Bruce J the 14-24 2.8 FX is my most favorite wide angle landscape lens and I ware mine out for wide angle. I do adore my 16mm Fish eye as well it would be one of the most underrated lenses ever but use it wisely, its awesome underwater or in the surf shooting waves internally or from underneath, so so sharp and needs such little iso, the D850 is the best versatile underwater camera ever, the Aquatec housing is a blast.

I feel The number one rule in photography is.............."there are no rules". Be who you want to be do what you want to do, life is a one way journey of time ticking by every second.


OZ Down under
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top