landscape lens.


screambitch

Member
Oct 26, 2008
487
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! =)
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,819
2
38
Singapore
www.kentwong.com
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.
 

shelomoh

Senior Member
Mar 17, 2009
842
0
16
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.
 

chewed

Member
Jun 16, 2004
48
0
6
How about primes instead of zoom?


Get a 20mm & a 24mm and you're set.
 

Last edited:

yyD70S

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2005
2,451
0
36
Singapore
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:

K S Kong

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2007
785
6
18
www.flickr.com
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/
 

thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
437
0
0
Singapore
primes are actually strong contenders for landscapes as they have both good IQs and are lightweight; more appreciated on long trips or hikes
 

screambitch

Member
Oct 26, 2008
487
0
16
Yishun.
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?