- Post score: 9
- #1
Zoom or Prime. Advice and rational would be appreciated.
Recommendation On Best Nikon S-Lens For Landscape Photography
- Thread starter johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail
- 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).
- Post score: 1
- #2
24-70 2.8
- Post score: 9
- #3
Would a wide angle prime be sharper?
- Post score: 3
- #4
Not in this case. The new 14-24 and 24-70 are as sharp and have no distortion. The previous 14-24 is famously sharp and in my own experience, the S is even sharper. The 14-24 would be my second suggestion.
- Post score: 9
- #5
Thanks!
Big question!
I have the z 14-24 f2.8 S and its wonderfully sharp and made for landscapes … and Astro.
on the YouTube channels I see “experts” declaring lenses like the z 70-200 f2.8 S as great for landscapes. I have this, but more often than not, I’m wishing for something wider. I also use the z 24-70 f4 S and I’ve seen others proclaiming the z 24-70 f2.8 S … but again, it’s personal choice. I’m looking at getting the z 24-120 f4 S….more as a go anywhere lens, but the 24mm is great for 95% of my landscapes.
I have the z 14-24 f2.8 S and its wonderfully sharp and made for landscapes … and Astro.
on the YouTube channels I see “experts” declaring lenses like the z 70-200 f2.8 S as great for landscapes. I have this, but more often than not, I’m wishing for something wider. I also use the z 24-70 f4 S and I’ve seen others proclaiming the z 24-70 f2.8 S … but again, it’s personal choice. I’m looking at getting the z 24-120 f4 S….more as a go anywhere lens, but the 24mm is great for 95% of my landscapes.
- Post score: 1
- #7
I don't have much to add to what has already been said. My "add" to the conversation is to inquire what type of landscapes do you wish to shoot?
I use a 24-70 a lot and I also use a 105 macro and sometimes a 100-400 or 200-500. I live in the midwestern USA. There are not a lot of opportunities for grand vista type landscapes. Most of my landscape work is more along the lines of "intimate landscapes" where the subject may be a small waterfall or an area of riffles on a stream. Perhaps a covered bridge or a tree hanging over a stream. I like to photograph old barns and do sometimes get landscape shots featuring an old barn.
For my work I find the 24-70 is ideal and I do find a lot of my shots are at the 70 end.
Hope this is helpful.
I use a 24-70 a lot and I also use a 105 macro and sometimes a 100-400 or 200-500. I live in the midwestern USA. There are not a lot of opportunities for grand vista type landscapes. Most of my landscape work is more along the lines of "intimate landscapes" where the subject may be a small waterfall or an area of riffles on a stream. Perhaps a covered bridge or a tree hanging over a stream. I like to photograph old barns and do sometimes get landscape shots featuring an old barn.
For my work I find the 24-70 is ideal and I do find a lot of my shots are at the 70 end.
Hope this is helpful.
Dave Wo
Active member
Depending on the scene, I actually use both a zoom (24-70mm) and also a prime 20mm which is a wonderful lens. The 20mm is sharp edge to edge and it performs really well. The zoom is more versatile and is sharp too at all mm's. Scene dictates what lens I use and what I want the "look" to be. Hope this helps.
Depends on type of landscape. For the 24-70 range the 2.8 probably isn’t really necessary over the f4 one because most landscapes you‘re going to stop down some for DoF anyway and optically the two are pretty close. For ultra wide…the 14-30 is cheaper than the 14-24 and again probably not worth the extra expense. I just saw yesterday that Hudson Henry did a workshop in the Palouse area or WA and he took many landscapes with his 100-400…didn’t use 5he other lenses he had at ll or minimally…can’t recall precisely.
The 2.8 lenses might be better for Astro very slightly…but the f4 one is only a stop slower and that’s easily correctable with ISO and going from 64 to 120 or whatever will not likely make a noticeable differ. The 2.8 lenses are bigger, heavier, and costlier…so for non pro use or for hikers they might not be worth it…they aren’t for me. I bought the 70-200/2.8 with my Z7II because it was the only longish Z lens available at the time…and I used it sparingly because for wildlife 200 just doesn’t cut it…and I haven’t taken it out of the house since I got the 100-400 and will likely sell it to help pay for my somewhere in the order queue Z9. With the 10p-400 along with the 24-70/f4, 14-30 for wider needs, and 24-200 for occasions when I need a lighter kit for travel or walking around I think I will have all I need.
The 2.8 lenses might be better for Astro very slightly…but the f4 one is only a stop slower and that’s easily correctable with ISO and going from 64 to 120 or whatever will not likely make a noticeable differ. The 2.8 lenses are bigger, heavier, and costlier…so for non pro use or for hikers they might not be worth it…they aren’t for me. I bought the 70-200/2.8 with my Z7II because it was the only longish Z lens available at the time…and I used it sparingly because for wildlife 200 just doesn’t cut it…and I haven’t taken it out of the house since I got the 100-400 and will likely sell it to help pay for my somewhere in the order queue Z9. With the 10p-400 along with the 24-70/f4, 14-30 for wider needs, and 24-200 for occasions when I need a lighter kit for travel or walking around I think I will have all I need.
Last edited:
My suggestions are a little late, but with any of the Z lenses you cannot go wrong. Personally I have the 14-30 f4, 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f4 & f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 for landscape. The f4's are lighter, smaller and pack easier for travel, while the f2.8's have better ergonomics and balance on a Z9, which I just like the feel of. The f4's fit nicely on the Z7 or Z6 (ii as well ) as do the f2.8's. Optically, to my eye there is very little loss in the f4s and would not hesitate to use them when I need to travel light.
One thing that has not been mentioned or I did not see is that the 14-30 f4 easily takes screw on filters, whereas the f2.8 will not, at least without expensive adapters if available. In my opinion Nikon Z owners are in the unusual and fortunate position that regardless of which lenses they decide on, they cannot go wrong optically. You would be giving up very little if anything by going with the f4 14-30 and f4 24-70 for landscape. "Budget price" does not mean "budget quality", it is just what you prefer ergonomically and your budget
One thing that has not been mentioned or I did not see is that the 14-30 f4 easily takes screw on filters, whereas the f2.8 will not, at least without expensive adapters if available. In my opinion Nikon Z owners are in the unusual and fortunate position that regardless of which lenses they decide on, they cannot go wrong optically. You would be giving up very little if anything by going with the f4 14-30 and f4 24-70 for landscape. "Budget price" does not mean "budget quality", it is just what you prefer ergonomically and your budget
Calson
Well-known member
My top three are the f-mount 14-24mm f/2.8, 19mm PC-E, and 85mm PC-E. Fourth place is the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5G lens. The only S lens I would want to use is the 14-24mm f/2.8 and there is nothing like the 18-35mm on the S lens road map. For landscape photography I have no issues with using the FTZ adapter and my f-mount lenses.
Suggest looking at the images you have shot in the past and see at what focal lengths there are clusters and go from there.
Suggest looking at the images you have shot in the past and see at what focal lengths there are clusters and go from there.
@Calson
Regarding your personal experience with the 19mm PC-E on which Z body?
I do not have the above lens, but did some research about shift/tilt lenses and found them to be very interesting. I'm the type of person who just loves learning about things I know little about. I have read that the 19mm PC-E lens was considered to be very sharp on lower pixel count Nikons ( eg. around 24 mp ), but did not fare out so well on 45 mp sensors ( because of size of Airy Disk overlapping individual sensors ). Since you obviously enjoy using this lens as one of your 'go to' lenses for landscape, have you found this to be a problem in the sharpness of your images towards the corners ?
Also, this lens is primarily promoted for Architecture, what advantages does it give you in Landscape compared to a non tilt / shift lens of the same focal length an maximum aperture ? I am just interested in your subjective enjoyment of using this particular lens for the type of images you like to create and if you use it as a "straight lens" or use the benefits of the tilt / shift for Landscape. Technical sharpness is not always part of the Artistic Creation and I follow some very talented photography artists who either create soft focus in camera or in post editing for the majority of their work and it is amazing.
Appreciate any time you give me in answering.
Regarding your personal experience with the 19mm PC-E on which Z body?
I do not have the above lens, but did some research about shift/tilt lenses and found them to be very interesting. I'm the type of person who just loves learning about things I know little about. I have read that the 19mm PC-E lens was considered to be very sharp on lower pixel count Nikons ( eg. around 24 mp ), but did not fare out so well on 45 mp sensors ( because of size of Airy Disk overlapping individual sensors ). Since you obviously enjoy using this lens as one of your 'go to' lenses for landscape, have you found this to be a problem in the sharpness of your images towards the corners ?
Also, this lens is primarily promoted for Architecture, what advantages does it give you in Landscape compared to a non tilt / shift lens of the same focal length an maximum aperture ? I am just interested in your subjective enjoyment of using this particular lens for the type of images you like to create and if you use it as a "straight lens" or use the benefits of the tilt / shift for Landscape. Technical sharpness is not always part of the Artistic Creation and I follow some very talented photography artists who either create soft focus in camera or in post editing for the majority of their work and it is amazing.
Appreciate any time you give me in answering.
Apija
Active member
- Post score: 2
- #13
Due to weight restrictions on travelling by plane to Namibia I took 3 Z Lenses 24-120 f4, 70-200 f2.8, 20 f1.8 & Z 1.4 TC for landscape and milky way photos. The 24-120 was just fine for any "Street", People, photos taken from the car etc. Because of my previous experiences and personal preferences I mainly used the 70-200 for landscape shots. If you can live with "only" 20mm the 20 f1.8 is one of the best lens on the market for milky way photography.
Calson
Well-known member
Best lens at this time is the f-mount 18-35mm f/3.5G lens using the FTZ adapter. Second choice is S lens is critical would be the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. A 45mm PC-E tilt shift is also a good option and would work fine with the FTZ adapter.
flyguy
Active member
The timing of this thread is interesting because I have been considering getting a wide angle prime for landscape and seascape shots so, before committing I researched photos from my trip to the Left Coast last September, I researched the most used focal lengths and to my surprise most of the shots I liked the best were taken at 70mm, using a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 on my D850. HUH!!! Also interesting that I had a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with me for that trip; I used that lens to zoom in of wave action and shoot some video.