landscape lens

[chad79]

Hi there i am looking for a prime lens for a nikon for landscape shots. I was thinking of the nikon 20mm f 2.8d. Any ideas please.

[Kym]

Not prime but the Sigma 10-20 is very good.

[wideangle]

For the nikon, like CyberOz said, i know a lot of people who use the Sigma 10-20 and they very much like the quality they gain from this lens. Not sure why you are looking at the 20mm lens, when it will be cropped on your camera, to something like 30mm, which won't be very wide angle.

[arthurking83]

If you have to have a prime, the 14mm f/2.8 is very good. BUT! at the price they sell for new, you may as well get a 14-24 for a few hundred more and it's actually better.

So far as I've seen, nothing beats the old 17-35mm f/2.8 as the best landscape lens for Nikon.
The 14-24 is supposedly sharper, the 17-55 is apparently better with a wider aperture, but the 17-35 is better in an all round sense.
I think Nikon have stopped production, and they can still be had new.. but there's so many of them over the last 10 years that a good secondhand one will still give great service(but make sure it's clean(inside) or factor the cost of getting it cleaned into the overall price.

10 years ago, that lens made most of Nikons wide primes almost redundant. And it seems Nikon have been hell bent on concentrating their efforts on good zooms ever since.

10-20Siggy 11-16Tokina 12-24Tokina and 12-24Nikon all make good landscape lenses too.

I can understand the want(or need) for a good fixed focal lens, as they do offer some good points over a zoom.. but they are slowly becoming negligible advantage nowadays with the advancement of lens technology.

What's the budget?

ps. eventually my goal is to own a 17-35/2.8, but it's not a priority(as yet). Once I make the change to FX it will become a priority though.
If the Aussie dollar regains some value, I may make it a priority also... ATM they are too expensive.

[IanB]

I have a 12-24 Nikon; magic :th3: But haven't used it since I bought the Canon :confused013

:)

[MarkW]

One of the best UWA lenses ever made by Nikon is the 17-35mm. In fact it was so desired it was re-introduced back into manufacture after the 12-24 was brought into the market. Its the one lens I would never part with. Razor sharp over the whole of its range but it does have some small amounts of distortion at the wide end but, that has to be expected and can be easily corrected in PS. A good fast lens but not cheap - you get what you pay for.

[arthurking83]

Mark(and Rick, as I know Rick has one too).
All the pros reckon it(17-35) doesn't flare when shot directly into a light source(at all). It's very hard to induce flare with this lens. But the caveat is that the lens has to have no dust inside it.

I have one lens that doesn't flare(much) and that's the Siggy10-20, but you can occasionally get it if the lens is pointed at a certain angle to the light source(mainly the sun).

Not that I hate lens flare, and occasionally I actually try to get it, if it makes for an OK effect(my current desktop is an image from 3 years ago of a landscape with flair.. Ooops flare :p)

[MarkW]

Arthur - I have never actually tried to induce flare and in the same token have never had any flare on any of my images that I can remember. The lens is clean inside I think and that little snippet of info is new to me so during the weekend I'm going to try make it flare provided we get some sunshine - not looking a good prospect - you'd think I lived in Melbourne instead of beautiful sunny Sydney.

[arthurking83]

LOL! we had a perfect day today.
1°C in the morning, a bit of frost and then and about 18°C and bright blue clear skies all day.. boring as hell.. but nice :D

I think the trick is that the lens must have to have dust(don't know to what degree) to get the lens flaring effect.

My ex father in law has one too(haven't seen him in 3 years tho.. and I remember his similar comment. Shoot into the sun without a care.

Siggy is good with non solar light sources.. no flare that i;ve noticed, but if the sun is at a certain angle and the lens at a certain angle you get thise horrid little triangle flares that need to be cloned/cropped.
The Nikon 18-35mm flared very badly, even on an overcast night in a pitch black cave with the lens cap on! :D ... but funnily enough that lens still has the honour of capturing the image that sits on my desktop! :crzy:

[kiwi]

I have a 20mm, the great thing it has over a specialist UWA is its size. It fits nicely into any pocket.

[IanB]

I have a 20mm, the great thing it has over a specialist UWA is its size. It fits nicely into any pocket. also nice on a full framer :th3:

:)

[IanB]

I have a 20mm, the great thing it has over a specialist UWA is its size. It fits nicely into any pocket. Also very nice on a full framer :th3:

:)

WWhooops :o

[MarkW]

Heres one I took in London on a fine sunny day this time last year. There is a very small amount of flare off the sun, but I was shooting directly into it. The photo has been PP with a bit of dodge to darken the statue and lightening the plinth, a bit of sharpening and saturation.

[discontinued]

I have a 12-24 Nikon; magic :th3: But haven't used it since I bought the Canon :confused013

:)

Does that mean I can borrow it? :love0: :p

[TOM]

they are slowly becoming negligible advantage nowadays with the advancement of lens technology.

If you are talking about Nikon, then sadly this statement is true, but certainly not a true of all manufacturers. Zoom lenses are a compromise and with all things being equal, cannot match primes when it comes to image quality (not just sharpness). I think it is unfortunate that Nikon neglects its range of prime lenses nowaday, but Carl Zeiss certainly have some very nice primes to fill the void.

Chad, only you can decided on what is the best landscape lens for you. For some it may be a 15mm lens, for others it could be a 35mm, 50mm or 200mm lens. It depends on your style. As for the 2.8/20mm, it is a good lens.

[IanB]

Does that mean I can borrow it? :love0: :p

What do you think I am; your dad or something

:)