I watched a real good video on landscape photography presented by B&H and Tim Cooper. Tim says normal focal lengths, i.e. 55mm, are not ideal for landscapes. A DX camera treats a 35mm lens as a 50mm field of view I believe. So that makes my 18-55mm lens only half-useable. Plus I had my eye on a 35mm f1.4 but it would be useless under the previous premise. I shoot landscapes about 90% of the time - my kit lenses will take care of the other 10%. What is a good landscape lens for a DX format? I don't need a fast lens since I like to shoot at f8 or 11.
Confused on Lens for Landscapes
- Thread starter Teamfour
- Start date
I guess you have to hear Tim Cooper's take on focal length. He proposes that by shooting at an equivalent 50-55mm view, a photo will lack that wow factor because that view is what the human eye sees. He recommends wide-angle or telephoto so the photo has elements that are not normally seen by people. I kind of understand what he is getting at. So, my thinking was that my 18-55mm lens will only provide unique views from 18-25mm. I may be drinking Tim's koolaid, but I wanted to see what the experts think. I will take a look at the 11-16mm. Thanks.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
The big question is: How much do you have to spend?
Some lenses to consider would be the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G, at around $1K or so. While Tokina offers the 12-28mm AT-X f/4 Pro and the 11-16mm f/2.8 DX-II for about half that; either one of those would serve you well.
I have the 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II but I'd be just as happy, if not happier I think, with the 12-28mm f/4 version.
All that being said, wider is not always better. I shoot a lot of landscapes using my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 because what you really need, more than anything in my opinion, for good landscapes is really, really good IQ. My girlfriend does a hell of job with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G; don't dare tell *her* that's not a landscape lens...
....
Some lenses to consider would be the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G, at around $1K or so. While Tokina offers the 12-28mm AT-X f/4 Pro and the 11-16mm f/2.8 DX-II for about half that; either one of those would serve you well.
I have the 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II but I'd be just as happy, if not happier I think, with the 12-28mm f/4 version.
All that being said, wider is not always better. I shoot a lot of landscapes using my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 because what you really need, more than anything in my opinion, for good landscapes is really, really good IQ. My girlfriend does a hell of job with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G; don't dare tell *her* that's not a landscape lens...
....
Last edited:
Thanks y'all. I guess I am over thinking this. I will get a few thousand more shots under my belt before worrying about focal length.
I find that the best way to figure out what lens I need for certain situations, be it landscapes or wildlife or whatever, is that to look at all my shots from the past and see which focal length that I used the most.
Michael J.
Senior Member
I prefer my Nikon 16-85mm. I have got the Sigma 10-20mm as well but didn't try that much with landscape. But the few shots I did were amazing too. But I wanna just say that at my beginning with my D5100 and th e18-55 Kit Lens my Landscape photos were wonderful too.
I actually use any lens I have in my bag to do landscape, cos it is not everything to get all you see in the photo it is the detail what the photo makes great.
Imagine what the photo should say and use what you have on your camera. At the end nobody knows for sure which lens you had mounted on your cam. The result is what counts.
I actually use any lens I have in my bag to do landscape, cos it is not everything to get all you see in the photo it is the detail what the photo makes great.
Imagine what the photo should say and use what you have on your camera. At the end nobody knows for sure which lens you had mounted on your cam. The result is what counts.
Vixen
Senior Member
I think that if you have a tight budget you might get more use out of a zoom that gives you a fairly wide range like the Tamron 18-270. I say this because while a wide angle would seem ideal, it is more ideal if the landscape is close eg a river, and bower of trees over a road.
Wide angle is not so good for distant landscapes such as standing on a mountain and looking at the vista, as distant stuff will be too distant to see.
I bought my wide angle (Tokina 12-24mm) for landscapes but find I use it only for close landscapes. It is also excellent for cars, buildings, people...anything you can get close to (if you like wide angle lens distortion)
Wide angle is not so good for distant landscapes such as standing on a mountain and looking at the vista, as distant stuff will be too distant to see.
I bought my wide angle (Tokina 12-24mm) for landscapes but find I use it only for close landscapes. It is also excellent for cars, buildings, people...anything you can get close to (if you like wide angle lens distortion)
Any lens is a good landscape lens. Depends what you're shooting, the light, and a host of other factors. For some landscapes, I use a 35mm....for others, I've used my Nifty Fifty. I've often used my 18-105. I want to get a Tokina 11-16....but that's because I happen to really like that focal length....not just for landscapes.
Use what you have, pay attention to the available light, make sure you get good composition...and fire away. Like you said, don't over think this.
Use what you have, pay attention to the available light, make sure you get good composition...and fire away. Like you said, don't over think this.
Focal length as they say is in the eye of the beholder. Some like it wide, some ultra wide, while others use telephoto.
As most landscapes are shot at around F8, you do not need a fast lense. Nor is AF necessary. So a lense that is sharp edge to edge at around F8 is your best bet. There are a lot of older manual focus lenses which satisfy the above criteria.
As most landscapes are shot at around F8, you do not need a fast lense. Nor is AF necessary. So a lense that is sharp edge to edge at around F8 is your best bet. There are a lot of older manual focus lenses which satisfy the above criteria.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
As I'm fond of saying (and I remind myself of this often)...
At some point you need to stop asking yourself, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking yourself, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?"
....
At some point you need to stop asking yourself, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking yourself, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?"
....
Fantastic statement!
I'm not sure I'm ready to stop blaming my equipment, I can't deal with that kind of pressure.
I prodominantly shoot landscapes and use a 10-20mm. I have a 17-50 lens on the way as I find in a lot of situations the 10-20 is just too wide and a lot of detail is lost. When tHe 17-50 arrives in sure it will share the load with the 10-20.
Dont get me wrong, the 10-20 is great and you can get some spectacular shots with it but it shrinks distant objects and there have been plenty of times recently when I wished I had a lens with a longer focal length to get the perspective of the shot I wanted right.
Dont get me wrong, the 10-20 is great and you can get some spectacular shots with it but it shrinks distant objects and there have been plenty of times recently when I wished I had a lens with a longer focal length to get the perspective of the shot I wanted right.
I also agree. There is no end to the number of lenses you can collect, but at the end of the day, unless you travel in style with a porter and a Man Friday, there is a limit to what you can carry and manage on your own. That is why I am still shooting with my kit 18-55 when I need the zoom, and 35mm DX when there is less light.
When I was in college, I would dream of having a top of the line SLR with at least 20 lenses, but as time went I realized that barring a few occasions, you can do with a wide, normal and a telephoto. Unless you are a professional photographers where specialized lenses are bringing in revenue a few lenses are sufficient for general photography.
When I was in college, I would dream of having a top of the line SLR with at least 20 lenses, but as time went I realized that barring a few occasions, you can do with a wide, normal and a telephoto. Unless you are a professional photographers where specialized lenses are bringing in revenue a few lenses are sufficient for general photography.