Looking to get into landscape photography. What’s a good all around lens? I’m a noob when it comes to it. I’ll be attending YouTube university in the evenings. Lol.
Landscape photography/ go to lens ?
- Thread starter Jerryjaws
- Start date
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).
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
I use the following and each has it's place for me; Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art, Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 G2, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 G2 and even my Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6
If interested in some tutorial videos one of our favorites is a local to our parts named Nick Page. He has free youtube videos that are interesting as well as tutorials for editing with a fee.
Nick Page Photography
Nick Page is a Landscape Photographer, Photography Educator, Podcaster, and Youtube content creator.
www.nickpagephotography.com
Good post above, landscapes can be shot with a variety of focal lengths. But if you're talking about iconic, sweeping landscape images then those are typically captured with a wide to very wide angle lens. Something as wide as 24mm on a full frame camera or 16mm on a DX crop camera is a good starting point but a lot of us shoot something even wider when we can. If you just want to include a lot of scene then 24mm (full frame) is a pretty good starting point and was one of Galen Rowell's favorite landscape lenses (35mm film days). But when you want to include very dramatic foreground elements and want them to loom large in the image (e.g. rocks in the foreground inches from the lens looming large) then something in the 14-20mm range (full frame) or 10mm-14mm range (DX crop) on the wide end can produce some very dramatic images but those shots also take more care to set up to be effective.
And of course these days it's so easy to pano stitch that a moderate focal length lens can be used to create some very wide and dramatic single or multi-row pano shots without too much trouble. For instance a three frame pano stitch with a 24mm lens with shots taken in portrait (vertical) mode can yield the same field of view as a 15 to 17mm lens depending on how much overlap you allow in the individual shots. Similarly a 3 shot vertical sequence with a 35mm lens can yield the FoV of a 24mm lens. Panos take a bit more field time for each shot but they're a great way to effectively widen the field of view when you don't have ultra wide lenses at hand. Single row panos with the images shot in vertical mode are a really easy way to capture a wider angle view but multi-row panos can take that concept a lot further but with more field set up time and hassle.
And of course these days it's so easy to pano stitch that a moderate focal length lens can be used to create some very wide and dramatic single or multi-row pano shots without too much trouble. For instance a three frame pano stitch with a 24mm lens with shots taken in portrait (vertical) mode can yield the same field of view as a 15 to 17mm lens depending on how much overlap you allow in the individual shots. Similarly a 3 shot vertical sequence with a 35mm lens can yield the FoV of a 24mm lens. Panos take a bit more field time for each shot but they're a great way to effectively widen the field of view when you don't have ultra wide lenses at hand. Single row panos with the images shot in vertical mode are a really easy way to capture a wider angle view but multi-row panos can take that concept a lot further but with more field set up time and hassle.
ruley74
Well-known member
I was asking similar questions a few months ago and after tooling about a little bit my thoughts are now the first lens i would get to do some general stuff is a good 24-70/24-105 style lens. and figure out the rest after playing some more. I'm still very much learning but I'm finding i reach for the 14-24 far too often, a bit more zoom would have been better retrospectively.
Craig McGowan
Active member
For the majority of my landscape shooting I use a Nikon 20mm f1.8 lens coupled to my D850. I personally enjoy the challenge of getting the composition to suit the focal length and not the other way around (if that makes sense).
I do also possess zoom lenses (inc. 14-24mm) for when the 20mm is just not going to work in a particular scene.
Good luck with your lens decision and future landscape shooting!
I do also possess zoom lenses (inc. 14-24mm) for when the 20mm is just not going to work in a particular scene.
Good luck with your lens decision and future landscape shooting!
The landscape lenses that I use most frequently are a Nikon 24-70, a Sigma 18-35, a Nikon 50 and a Sigma 10-20. I also take a number of vertical panorama shot sequences and stitch them together in Lightroom. I have some longer reach lenses, but seldom use them for landscape photography. I probably should, but then I'd need a bigger pack!
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
That is the issue with the super tele lenses but I generally carry a 200-500 with me everywhere across the chest and have the wider stuff in a pack. Just my thing as a hobby Photography is an excuse to be outdoors
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
Great post, Just to add the photographer I mentioned also does a lot of vertical shots stitched together as he creates very dramatic images that way.
Snapshot2020
Well-known member
I have the 16-35 f4 VR just have to deal with the Barrell Distortion on the lower end and the 24 - 70 2.8 G which has been my Landscape favorite for many years. The 24 - 70 2.8 G Version non VR and those slower Shutter Speeds situations do prompt a Tripod.
What camera body are you using? Full frame? DX? Something else?
gbodave
Active member
I've always liked a mid range zoom because you have options which is a good start because sometimes the main point of interest in a landscape may look so tiny as to have little value and it just becomes a nuisance after a while when using the shortest focal length ("I wish I'd got nearer to that cottage with the roses round the door). A 24-70mm is a popular choice and at 24mm that cottage is almost not worth having but at 70mm it might be close enough to play a significant part in the image. Now, many people say "well, just get closer to start with". My experience is that there are tons of times when that can't be done - you're behind a wall, or fence , on the edge of a river or precipice and you are just stuck. To have that focal length flexibility is worth a lot for me.
On the other side of the coin, being able to shoot at say 18mm gives an incredible advantage with depth of field and F number. Just by way of an example and numbers are approximate, 18mm with F2.8 and the focus point placed 50 feet in front of the camera will give DOF to infinity which is by and large what most people are after. Being able to use F2.8 is massively beneficial if light is poor. It will keep ISO down considerably. With 18mm and F2.8 you can even have focus to infinity when the point of focus is only 15 feet in front of the camera and depth of field in front of the point of focus would be around 8 feet so very little of the immediate foreground would suffer.
Using F2.8 at 70mm means you would need to focus at around 200 feet from the camera to have focus to infinity but depth of field in front of the point of focus would be severely limited at around 100 feet.
So to cover the bases I wanted to cover and a have as much clarity in front of and behind the point of focus as possible I used a 24-70mm when that was appropriate and a Tokina 16-28m F2.8 lens at other times.
Whatever you do don't listen to those who say you MUST be using F16-F22 to have clarity to infinity. Those numbers will also move you into diffraction territory.
On the other side of the coin, being able to shoot at say 18mm gives an incredible advantage with depth of field and F number. Just by way of an example and numbers are approximate, 18mm with F2.8 and the focus point placed 50 feet in front of the camera will give DOF to infinity which is by and large what most people are after. Being able to use F2.8 is massively beneficial if light is poor. It will keep ISO down considerably. With 18mm and F2.8 you can even have focus to infinity when the point of focus is only 15 feet in front of the camera and depth of field in front of the point of focus would be around 8 feet so very little of the immediate foreground would suffer.
Using F2.8 at 70mm means you would need to focus at around 200 feet from the camera to have focus to infinity but depth of field in front of the point of focus would be severely limited at around 100 feet.
So to cover the bases I wanted to cover and a have as much clarity in front of and behind the point of focus as possible I used a 24-70mm when that was appropriate and a Tokina 16-28m F2.8 lens at other times.
Whatever you do don't listen to those who say you MUST be using F16-F22 to have clarity to infinity. Those numbers will also move you into diffraction territory.
I have A9 and A7r4. I’m a wildlife shooter
When I got my D780, the 10-24 DX lens I'd been using on my 7200 was no longer an option for landscape photography. I looked at lots of reviews and decided the best option for me was the Nikon 18-35 f.3.5-4.5, not wanting to spend a lot of money on a wide angle. My thinking was to put my money into a good telephoto and got the Nikon 70-200 E FL which I love for it's sharpness amongst other things. My thinking about a slower lens like the 18-35 is that you are almost always stopping down for depth of field so 2.8 is not really necessary. I find this lens extremely sharp for my needs. On my 27 inch iMac screen the photos are incredibly sharp. I'm sure there are other lens that are sharper but what's the point if you can't see it for all practical purposes. With the 70-200 however I can certainly see how much sharper it is than any other telephoto I've owned.
I tried to attach a photo but for some reason it wouldn't work and the file wasn't big.
I tried to attach a photo but for some reason it wouldn't work and the file wasn't big.
Yezdi
Well-known member
Since you are Sony shooter and both your cameras are full frame, you can get the FE 16-35mm f2.8 or the FE 12-24mm f2.8 lens. Both are from the G Master series and exceptional piece of glass.
Squawk
Well-known member
I’m going to be a little controversial here and I don’t think many will agree, but to start with I’d suggest a 50mm prime. I’m not against wide angles but I think it’s important to first get the composition and principals nailed and then use other focal lengths later if you want to produce a more specialist image. I’m against zooms as I think people use that instead of shifting position and as one rather well known landscape photographer said “a good photograph is knowing where to stand”. 50mm primes give straight clean images and are brilliant at enforcing a discipline that will improve your skills by making you think and plan more.
I’ll apologise in advance to everyone I’ve upset by such unenlightened and uncreative ideas and I’ll also confess to owning a wide angle zoom (14-24 f2.8). And before anyone explains, I do understand the different effects to be obtained by differing angles of view, but as was mentioned at the start, this is just the first step.
I’ll apologise in advance to everyone I’ve upset by such unenlightened and uncreative ideas and I’ll also confess to owning a wide angle zoom (14-24 f2.8). And before anyone explains, I do understand the different effects to be obtained by differing angles of view, but as was mentioned at the start, this is just the first step.
While there are focal lengths that may be better for a given situation, you might consider the lens characteristics as well.
Landscapes generally need good performance across the frame. That means lenses that are good in the corners are important - especially if you are considering panoramas. Good in the corners usually refers to sharpness, but also applies to vignetting although vignetting is usually controlled easily with software.
Newer lenses are usually better at controlling chromatic aberration. It might be controlled with software, but sometimes CA can be challenging.
If you are also considering architecture, lens distortion can be an issue. Again - it's usually controlled with software, but that can depend on your workflow and specifics.
For astrophotography, you might think about coma - a type of blur in the corners of the lens where point lights turn into "comma shapes".
Other lens issues such as flare are addressed with lens design and coatings. Lens flare comes up when you are shooting toward the sun.
For most landscapes (excluding astrophotography), you'll be using the lens stopped down to f/5.6 to f/11. That means you should evaluate your lens choice stopped down - not wide open. Many normal lenses are sharpest wide open or nearly so. Some inexpensive lenses perform nearly as well as expensive alternatives if they are both stopped down to f/8.
Lenses choices are generally going to be a matter of balancing different needs. A great all purpose lens for events and portraits might not be the best choice for landscapes. Portraits and events usually are fine with a lens that has softer corners and a vignette, but the center needs to be good. The best lens for general use may not be the best lens for landscapes.
Landscapes generally need good performance across the frame. That means lenses that are good in the corners are important - especially if you are considering panoramas. Good in the corners usually refers to sharpness, but also applies to vignetting although vignetting is usually controlled easily with software.
Newer lenses are usually better at controlling chromatic aberration. It might be controlled with software, but sometimes CA can be challenging.
If you are also considering architecture, lens distortion can be an issue. Again - it's usually controlled with software, but that can depend on your workflow and specifics.
For astrophotography, you might think about coma - a type of blur in the corners of the lens where point lights turn into "comma shapes".
Other lens issues such as flare are addressed with lens design and coatings. Lens flare comes up when you are shooting toward the sun.
For most landscapes (excluding astrophotography), you'll be using the lens stopped down to f/5.6 to f/11. That means you should evaluate your lens choice stopped down - not wide open. Many normal lenses are sharpest wide open or nearly so. Some inexpensive lenses perform nearly as well as expensive alternatives if they are both stopped down to f/8.
Lenses choices are generally going to be a matter of balancing different needs. A great all purpose lens for events and portraits might not be the best choice for landscapes. Portraits and events usually are fine with a lens that has softer corners and a vignette, but the center needs to be good. The best lens for general use may not be the best lens for landscapes.
Thern
Well-known member
Hah! The good old 50mm! When i was teached photography it was the common rule to learn it with a 50mm for 35mm SLRs.
The idea was that focal length equals our eyesight in magnification and FOV
We used frames of cardboard to be able to see the picture we were about to make.
Did it help to learn how to look with a ‘photographic eye’ ?
I guess a lot, one would look through the frame, moving, shifting, tilting it to ones satisfaction, then replicate the setup with the camera, then make the picture.
Nevertheless the minute we were allowed to put that friggin 50mm in our bag it was put away and selden used again. LOL
Regarding the quote of Adams you posted.
Adams was a brilliant photographer and filosopher and known for his efforts to get to the right place.
He would often leave before dawn, and arrive home after dusk, because he knew the importance of finding the right place to stand, climbing mountains and or hiking miles to get the right angle and composition he ‘saw’ aso aso
That’s imo far from the same like using a zoom vs the use of a prime.
Btw
Adams also said ‘There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.’
and my favorite ‘There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.’
I use the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 OR 24-120 f4, Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2.
I'm using the Z6 and find that while my 24-70 f/4 is my normal lens; I am now carrying my 14-30 f/4 with me. I am finding that 'close' landscape 'feels' better with the wider lens.
Very scientific!
Very scientific!
Some of the best videos I've seen on landscape techniques are those done by Ian Plant. You can find them under the heading "Shuttermonkeys" on You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/shuttermonkeystv
PhilColw
New member
For anyone using a Nikon DX camera. the Nikon 10-20mm is an inexpensive way to start exploring the use of a super wide-angle lens. It costs only $306.95 US at B&H, and is capable of taking very good photos. It's small and very light weight. Construction is plastic, but at that price, just replace it if it breaks.
Sawdustman
New member
I like my 24-70 when I'm hiking in the mountains for wide vistas. I do find though many times I wish I had brought the 16-35 for a wider view.
And of course the 70-200 for those long shots. If its not a really long day I carry 2 bodies to make it easier.
And of course the 70-200 for those long shots. If its not a really long day I carry 2 bodies to make it easier.
ccirelli
Well-known member
My 24-70 Z is a super all-around lens. I also have a 70-300 AF-P (used with FTZ on my Z6). I think this range would cover you well to start.
I also (finally) ordered Nikon's 20 1.8 Z. I had a 20 prime many years ago, I loved it - so I'm really looking forward to this new Z version.
I also (finally) ordered Nikon's 20 1.8 Z. I had a 20 prime many years ago, I loved it - so I'm really looking forward to this new Z version.
O
Well-known member
Try the 19mm Nikon Tilt Shift, or 17mm in Canon or if you like the best of the Schneider tilt shift kills, once you use it, it speaks for itself, Landscape photography will never be the same, optically its as good as it gets ...............if that’s what you’re after.
O
Well-known member
Seriously, For all round walk about versatility as a travel lens and excellent landscape lens the 16-35 is probably a lens you will use more often than anything else, its sharper by 20% in the middle only than most 14-24 or equivalent, less so in the far corners but not an issue unless your a pixel peeper.
However as good as it gets optically in F or even against Z mounts is a tilt shift if used properly, and if optics matter, Schneider is King.
But if your not a Gear Geek and want all round affordable usable glass the 16-35 is excellent,
Remember the gear dose not maketh the photographer .
Be different, be good.