24mm f2.8d good enough for landscape photography?


njchay

New Member
May 26, 2008
294
0
0
30
West Coast
#1
I'm using D700. Decided to go into landscape photgraphy would like to know whether if 24mm is enough for landscape photography? Or should I go for wide angle zoom lens like 17 - 35 f2.8?

Please advice.

Pros:
Light weight
Affordable
Prime usually sharper than zoom?

Cons:
Fixed focal
 

ngck12

New Member
Dec 4, 2007
704
0
0
beside jurong point
#2
Yes it is good enough, but if you have spare cash by all means go for the ex-trinity or even the 14-24.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#3
here are some user based reviews : http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=56&sort=1&cat=12. It will do great.

The current Nikkor zoom offerings like the stellar 14-24mm and the 24-70mm probably will match up if not better than the older formula AFD 24mm f2.8. But as a lightweight package it is hard to beat.

Ryan
 

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#4
The only reason I choose prime lens is the ability in low light (f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens)
Other than that, I would definitely go to zoom lens.

If could afford 24mm f/1.4, this would be the best choice for you.
Otherwise, the 14-24mm f/2.8 or 17-35mm f/2.8 would be best alternative.
Please note that 14-24mm f/2.8 can't use ordinary filters.
 

DrSpock

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,088
0
0
Warp back to Simei
#8
IMHO, D700 is solid for low light photography as well as good dynamic range but a crop body will be better for taking landscape. I use the 17-35mm most of time but occassionally use the 24-70mm and only for night landscape or dim indoors where I really need the wide view of the FX. '

Day time I'd rather use the D300s with Tokina ATX116 or Tammy 17-50VC, as I need the whole frame to be sharp in focus form near to infinity. Both these lenses are not much heavier to lug around.

Just my 2 cents worth
 

Jan 12, 2007
378
0
0
#9
hi if u have started to look at UWA zooms. let me suggest the sigma. 12-24 4.5-5.6. i hear its pretty darn sharp. plus its the widest rectilinear lens you are going to find. prime or zoom.

the sigma goes wider and is cheaper than the nikkor wide zooms. i mean strictly if you are shooting landscape, i would assume a tripod being used. i dont understand the need for a 'fast' lens anyway. you might probably wont be shooting wide open.

in anycase, i managed to handhold without handshake at 1/10th of a second.

landscape isnt always about going wide. ive seen photographers shooting landscape with telephoto lenses as well. just not in sg. hahaha
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#10
here are some user based reviews : http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=56&sort=1&cat=12. It will do great.

The current Nikkor zoom offerings like the stellar 14-24mm and the 24-70mm probably will match up if not better than the older formula AFD 24mm f2.8. But as a lightweight package it is hard to beat.

Ryan
I have the 14-24mm and had the 24mm. If you are shooting at f2.8, the 14-24mm at 24mm is WAY better than the 24mm at the corners.

But assuming you are shooting at the more normal apertures of maybe f8, there isn't that much difference.

Actually the 14-24mm cannot take screw on filters is a BIG MINUS.....
 

#11
i initially thought that the no filters thing was overrated... but when i saw the new tokina 16-28 (which is similar to the 14-24 where you can't fix filters AND the front element was really protruding outwards like nobody's business) i panicked! it's easy to imagine how easily it can be bumped/damaged/etc!

i ended up getting the 17-35, can affix the usual 77mm nc or uv filters
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#12
i initially thought that the no filters thing was overrated... but when i saw the new tokina 16-28 (which is similar to the 14-24 where you can't fix filters AND the front element was really protruding outwards like nobody's business) i panicked! it's easy to imagine how easily it can be bumped/damaged/etc!

i ended up getting the 17-35, can affix the usual 77mm nc or uv filters
actually when I first got the 14-24mm, I was worried about the protruding lens element, but seriously after 3 overseas trips, there isn't really any issue. The built in lens hood actually provide quite a fair bit of protection, especially if you place the 14-24mm at 24mm.

The disadv for no filter to me is that you cannot easily put on a ND filter to reduce the shutter speed. Especially nikon DSLRs (D700) has base ISO of 200 instead of 100.
 

Last edited:
Jan 15, 2004
418
0
16
Bukit Batok
www.flickr.com
#13
In my opinion, Prime & Zoom lenses have their purpose.


The 24mm f2.8D is "GOOD" enough for certain. But again it is subjective because what matters here is the POV ( point of view ) it gives you. The 24mm focal length gives you a taste of an ultra wide, without the distortion of a 20mm. The nikkor is reasonably compact and lightweight enough to bring it with you all day. It uses 52mm filters, which would be cheaper than 77mm filters that the following lenses use.

I do not suggest the 24mm f1.4 unless you have deep pockets or earn enough $$$$ from using it. For that price you can easily consider the 14-24 ,or the 2 zooms below.

With a zoom lens like the 17-28 f2.8 or the newer better 16-35f4VR, what you get is versatility and choice. You will be able to try a wider or narrower view to suit your vision. You will also have to carry a bigger lens though.

So what is more important to you? to carry less weight or more versatility? :cool:
 

njchay

New Member
May 26, 2008
294
0
0
30
West Coast
#15
Thanks all, guess my choice is clear, will be getting a 24mm F2.8 since I am a starter. Maybe when i am more proficient, will consider getting a wider angle zoom.
 

#16
frankly other than tele, any other lens can do amazing works for landscape.

landscape photography is all about the time/day/weather/angle. You will be using F11 and above with long exposure to capture the landscape. Thus having a F2.8 doesnt really help much.
some photographers are using kit lens to photograph landscape which usually starts at 18mm.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#17
frankly other than tele, any other lens can do amazing works for landscape.

landscape photography is all about the time/day/weather/angle. You will be using F11 and above with long exposure to capture the landscape. Thus having a F2.8 doesnt really help much.
some photographers are using kit lens to photograph landscape which usually starts at 18mm.
Nope, tele can also do landscape, just a different type. Not so much in Singapore though, I think most people use tele mostly for mountains, and we don't even have that many hills to speak of, much less mountains.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#18
Nope, tele can also do landscape, just a different type. Not so much in Singapore though, I think most people use tele mostly for mountains, and we don't even have that many hills to speak of, much less mountains.
Ditto. There is no dictation that one can only use wide lenses for landscape photography. In fact I am thinking of using even longer teles for my next trip ;p;p;p

Ryan
 

sf_kang

New Member
Nov 3, 2004
642
0
0
65
Singapore
#19
for 'normal landscape shooting, the apertures used are usually between f5.6 - f.11, even f16 in order to get more depth of field. Serious landscape photographers stop down their lens to get sharpness and more DOF, and shoot from a tripod, and also use the slowest possible ISO to get max image quality and lowest noise.

imho, the main concern is Angle of Coverage, i.e. where the lens is wide enough to cover the kinds of sceneries you wish to capture. 24mm on the D700 is already quite wide and definiitely suitable for landscape photography. a 20mm would cover wider. problem with using the prime is that, sometimes, your desired composition may not fit exactly the 24mm angle of view. you will have to do some cropping after shooting. in my case, i shoot travel landscapes using the AF-S 14-24mm/f2.8. Most landscape shooters do not shoot wide open at f2.8.

you're welcome to click on to my flickr album set to view some photos taken during my recent trip to turkey.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28858702@N07/sets/72157625532446002/

many were shot with either the 14-24 or 70-200.

happy shooting.
fred
 

Ansel

Senior Member
Apr 30, 2003
2,207
0
0
Land Downunder
Visit site
#20
I'm using D700. Decided to go into landscape photgraphy would like to know whether if 24mm is enough for landscape photography? Or should I go for wide angle zoom lens like 17 - 35 f2.8?

Please advice.

Pros:
Light weight
Affordable
Prime usually sharper than zoom?

Cons:
Fixed focal
YYYes.
 

Top Bottom