landscape lens.


screambitch

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2008
513
0
16
Yishun.
hi there, i'm using a D700. i've been wanting to get a good landscape lens for a while now.
i'm looking at the 14-24 f/2.8 or the 16-35 f/4. i really like the range on the 14-24 but i've also heard that the 16-35 is actually sharper. my intentions are to use the lens for landscape photography when i travel and locally as well.

i wondering what are the prices of these to lenses and if anyone will be willing to give some opinions on the lenses. also preferably i would like to purchase the item at a shop that will allow me to pay via credit card installments.

thanks! =)
 

Unable to use filters on 14-24mm is a very big turn-off for me. 14-24mm is more expensive too.
I vote for 16-35mm.
 

I was looking for a UWA for FX last time.

The contenders were:
14-24
17-35
16-35

I end up getting the 17-35.

For landscape 16-35 should be good enough. 14-24 is very good but it can't take normal filters so that is what turns me off. I choose 16-35 over 17-35 because I need to use it for events as well so I need the speed.
 

How about primes instead of zoom?


Get a 20mm & a 24mm and you're set.
 

Last edited:
This has been really asked and summarised many times but since it is still the Year of the Tiger, here are some thoughts:

Amongst the three wide-angle Nikkor zooms still in production, go for...
(a) the 14-24mm if top IQ and minimal linear distortion is your concern (at the expense of an expensive filter set-up) and you better know that 14mm is really wide (ie, you have to give a lot of thought to your foreground)
(b) the 16-35mm if you are game for filters and IQ still has to be up there (at the expense of linear distortion at the wide end; not really much of a concern for general landscape but might be a nightmare for architecture, cityscapes with plentiful buildings, etc)
(c) the 17-35mm if you can live with some IQ loss (esp. in the corners), whereby filters are still the name of the game, where f2.8 comes in useful for PJ-type-of-work (hobby) and for its more-than-good build.

Don't discount primes and the telephoto range too for landscapes BUT that's another topic.



hi there, i'm using a D700. i've been wanting to get a good landscape lens for a while now.
i'm looking at the 14-24 f/2.8 or the 16-35 f/4. i really like the range on the 14-24 but i've also heard that the 16-35 is actually sharper. my intentions are to use the lens for landscape photography when i travel and locally as well.

i wondering what are the prices of these to lenses and if anyone will be willing to give some opinions on the lenses. also preferably i would like to purchase the item at a shop that will allow me to pay via credit card installments.

thanks! =)
 

Last edited:
Personally feel that the 16-35mm f4 may be would be more useful, the advantage is can work with filters. Drawback is that it using plastic shell, and only eight contacts point (only using a cheaper small focusing motor).

In fact, landscape photography is not just using wide-angle lens, a mind rang or some times a telephoto lens can come in handy.

Personally feel that the 16-35mm f4 may be would be more useful, the advantage is can work with filters. Drawback is that it using plastic shell, and only eight contacts point (only using a cheaper small focusing motor).

In fact, landscape photography is not just using wide-angle lens, sometimes a normal zoom (24-70mm or 24-120mm or a telephoto lens 70-200mm can also come in handy.

Some of the more recent landscape photo that using different focal length

24-70mm f2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4696126502/in/set-72157624140444583/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4696162946/in/set-72157624140444583/

70-200mm f2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4696140970/in/set-72157624140444583/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4695458703/in/set-72157624140444583/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4696103306/in/set-72157624140444583/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4696183878/in/set-72157624140444583/

200mm-400mm f4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kskong/4696142880/in/set-72157624140444583/
 

primes are actually strong contenders for landscapes as they have both good IQs and are lightweight; more appreciated on long trips or hikes
 

after going thru the web based reviews and feedback from you guys. plus the fact that i'll have to use some exorbitantly priced filters if i wanna get the 14-24. i decided to get the 16-35 instead. looks a little more promising. thanks a bunch! btw does CP offer 24 mths installments on items purchased?