Landscape lenses

[Oneputt]

OK I am interested in what forum members think is the best landscape lens around, and what forum members actually use themselves. I have my own ideas which will be revealed later, but for now I want the opinion of others.

[birddog114]

Zoom:
Sig 10-20
Sig 12-24
Tok 12-24
Nik 12-24
Nik 10.5FE

Prime:
Nik 14mm/2.8
Nik 18/2.8

[Glen]

I use the 12-24 Sigma and am happy with it. I chose it for perceived less distortion (my perception ) when doing architectual shots. The others have the advantage of being able to use a cpl which the Sigma can't. Couldn't say which is best as I haven't looked at this recently.

[moz]

I use the Sigma 12-24, Canon 17-40, Canon 50/1.4 mostly, although I'll probably start using the Sigma 18-50/2.8 now I have it (and now I've had to unborrow the 17-40). Short is useful for single-shot landscapes, but the longers lenses are my preference once stitching is an option.

I'm keen to try a T/S lens for easy stitching, and if I had a decent camera I might do single shots more, but for now stacking 3-4 portrait shots from the 300D is what I've done most.

[stubbsy]

John

Is there a best lens in any category. For me it depends on the image I want to capture so the best lens would change with that.

My most commonly used "best" landscape lens is my Nikon 12-24DX (marginally more distortion than Sigma, but takes filters), but there are times when the Nikkor 10.5 DX fisheye is best and even on occasion my 24-120 VR is best. PS If buying now I'd also consider the Tokina 12-24 instead of the Nikkor based solely on price.

[avkomp]

currently I use the kit lens
mainly because I dont own another wide angle.

If I was doing lots of landscape work I would perhaps look at one of the ultra wideangle zooms and even a fisheye, this might depend on the type of stuff I wanted to shoot and funds.

good quality stitching software means that good landscapes can be crafted with standard lenses also these days.

Steve

[Finch]

John,

Up until recently, I used a brilliant landscape lens that is hard to surpass for quality. This was a Nikon 18mm 2.8 self-corrected lens and for my 35mm camera, was an absolute stunner (nice price, too). Unfortunately, it has now become a 27mm when using a digital SLR which has a 1.5 conversion.

Am considering landscape lenses at the moment to use with digital SLRs and am reading this thread with interest.

Cheers

Michael

[Killakoala]

All depends what you mean by 'landscape.'

I'm now using my 12-24mm Sigma at 24mm for panoramas, which means nice wide landscapes. I would prefer a prime between 20mm and 28mm as it may provide improved images.

The 17-35mm F2.8 may be a good lens for landscapes too.

I have used my 80-200 (at 200mm) on occasions for landscapes.

Maybe you will need a swag of lenses, for all occasions.

[Oneputt]

Ok the reason behind starting this thread. I first bought the Sigma 12-24 for landscapes and it was quite a good lens, but it was a big lens and I was always worried about damaging it. As a landscape lens it dealt quite well with vast scenes and was quite sharp across its range.

I sold it to buy the Sigma 10-20 and have been very dissapointed in it's performance over the same large scenes where it is very soft. For short range work it is sharp but over any sort of a distance it simply fails any test of sharpness. On the weekend I had the opportunity (thanks Slider) to test my lens alongside another Sigma 10-20 on two cameras and under identical conditions. It still failed over the range I bought it for. It might be a good wide angle lens for architectural work, but as a landscape lens in my book it just doesn't cut it. I get far better results from the kit lens.

[Andyt]

Oneputt,

I have on order the Tokina 12-24, primarily as a "landscape" lens for use up here. The reasons for my choice over Nikon & Sigma were:

Nikon: Price & review camparisons with the Tokina,

Sigma: Reviews were mixed with some issues highlighted but a common comment was that the build quality was "patchy" ie some good some bad.

As to whether I made a good choice depends on my results I guess, hoping the Easter Bunny comes good in time.

Cheers

[hdj80]

John
You had a type in teh first sentence. I know you had a 12-24 you replaced with a 10-20.

In my experience:
I think it depends on the landscape work you are doing. I follow the foreground interest leading to expansive view style in my images which really lends itself towards the Sigma 12-24 I currently run.
So far I am extremely happy with this lens.
Since moving to digital I have been playing with panoramas. With these I think a slightly longer focal length probably provides better detail in the image and my best results so far have been with a 24-105 Minolta lens at 24mm.

[losfp]

I have the Tokina 12-24, and it just about never leaves the camera when we're out bushwalking (whenever we could be bothered!!)

The quality to my eyes is very close to the Nikkor 12-24, but at half the price, it is a no-brainer.

[glamy]

When I first got the Sigma 12-24 I always used it for landscape. When I got the 10.5 I used it less. Now that I got the 17-35, I am surprised at the noticeable difference in clarity, sharpness etc... I guess it still would be better on a D2X.
Cheers,
Gerard

[Steffen]

It doesn't have to be wide all the time, though. I've taken many landscape shots with my 50, 85 and 180.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Oneputt]

One of the reasons for starting this debate was a sneaking suspicion that wide angle lenses might not be the best option for landscape work, no matter what the make and model of the lens.

[huynhie]

It doesn't have to be wide all the time, though. I've taken many landscape shots with my 50, 85 and 180.

Cheers
Steffen.

I agree, there have been times that I have used the 70-200 just to get closer when I can't move any closer to a scene.

[radar]

Hi John,

One of the reasons for starting this debate was a sneaking suspicion that wide angle lenses might not be the best option for landscape work, no matter what the make and model of the lens.

you are very right in terms of a WA not being the best lens all the time. A lot of times, it is, some times it isn't. As the photographer, you make the decision as to what will give you that better photo. See Daniel's photo from the Barrington Tops:

http://static.flickr.com/38/116274771_576b77f105_o.jpg
His image was taken with his 80-400VR, I also used the 80-400 to get similar photos.

So when travelling to take landscapes, have a selection of lenses with you, you never know which one you will need.

Myself, I've got the Tokina 12-24 and really enjoy using it. Probably a bit heavier then what I would have liked, but sharp, solidly built, great price.

Cheers,

André

[cameraguy21773]

Assuming we mean vista type landscapes, I would (do) favor the Sigma EX 12-24 and the Nikkor 20mm f3.5 AI-S (52mm thread).

[DionM]

I use my 17-40 most of the time, but I agree that often a landscape looks better with a telephoto lens (in my case, 70-200).

[johndec]

I have the Tokina 12-24, and it just about never leaves the camera when we're out bushwalking (whenever we could be bothered!!)

The quality to my eyes is very close to the Nikkor 12-24, but at half the price, it is a no-brainer.

[spada]

Yes I agree with this too, last Chrismas Holliday in Asia , the wide angle stay most of the time on the camera, I mainly shoot lanscape.


Regards
spada

[birddog114]

Yes I agree with this too, last Chrismas Holliday in Asia , the wide angle stay most of the time on the camera, I mainly shoot lanscape.


Regards
spada

But what lens? you have to tell your story.

[spada]

It is in the dark side the canon 10-22mm I use my Bro camera he is living in VN. I bought the nikon mount tokina after I came back to Australia.


regards
spada

[Oneputt]

Oooooh caught out Spada

[Dug]

It depends on the landscape and what you want from it !

I admit I loved my 17mm tokina on 35mm but good landscapes can be taken with any lens. It is just a matter of looking for the image.

If you have a 10mm on you look for 10mm shots if you have a 200mm you look for the 200mm photo.

It is a matter of training your eyes as much as buying the right lens.

Sorry if this is a bit Zen but it's late at night.

[glamy]

I agree, when last in the Blue Mountain I shot landscapes with the 70-200 to get a different perspective.
Cheers,
Gerard

[redline]

40mm with my 135 film back

[mudder]

G'day,

I've used all my lenses on different landscape situations, ranging from the 12-24, the 50F1.8, kit lens (18-70DX) to the 80-400, but I would definately use the 12-24 the most by far, at least for single images, as in not stitched pano's...

To me, really wide (short focal length WA) lenses seem to expand the difference in distances between foreground and background, whereas longer focal lengths seem to compress them, so they have different effects, well to me anyway... If I wanted to try and make the background look sort of "closer" to my foreground subject then I'd use a longer focal length...

I while ago whlie standing ankle deep in water at a nice waterfall spot, when looking at a scene from low level just above the water with a mossy rock as my foreground, the falls seem a long distance away and seemed insignificant in the background, so I swapped to a much longer lens (went from 24mm on the 12-24 to about 60 on the 18-70DX) that made the scene much more interesting and the falls in the background seemed much closer and made the composition work well... Horses for courses, you know...

[Spooky]

I have also been looking at getting a wide angle lens and had decided on the 10-20 Sigma though this thread makes me doubt this choice.

I want the lens primarily for landscape work especially for my Antarctic/Sth Amercia trip I have at the end of year.

Would I be better off sticking with my kit lens (18-70) and covering the wide angle stuff by stitching panos together?

I must admit though I have seen some fantastic portrait orientated shots from wide angle lenses where the the shooter has got down low and captured some foreground like a shallow creek bed where water is running over water smoothed pebble stones with mountains in the background in the top half of the frame. This is the sort of thing I see the wide angles excelling in.

[Dug]

I have also been looking at getting a wide angle lens and had decided on the 10-20 Sigma though this thread makes me doubt this choice.

I want the lens primarily for landscape work especially for my Antarctic/Sth Amercia trip I have at the end of year.

Would I be better off sticking with my kit lens (18-70) and covering the wide angle stuff by stitching panos together?

I must admit though I have seen some fantastic portrait orientated shots from wide angle lenses where the the shooter has got down low and captured some foreground like a shallow creek bed where water is running over water smoothed pebble stones with mountains in the background in the top half of the frame. This is the sort of thing I see the wide angles excelling in.

Again I LOVE this lens there are things I cannot do without it.

it may not be the most amazingly sharp lens ever built but maybe I am not the sharpest photographer on the block either


I have used this lens for commercial shoots and my clients are happy ( sometimes amazed) with the work.

If I was going to south america / antarctica would I take this lens or just my kit 18 70?

YES!!!!!!!

If just to get close up of figures in the landscape. I can also visualize hanging over the bow of the boat with this lens and I am salivating at the view below.

[psionic]

Up until a fortnight ago I would have said the 18-70DX kit lens at 18mm was a good landscape lens, you even had the option to flatten the image out a bit towards the 70mm end.

But having recently invested in a Nikon 12-24mm, I've found this great as a walk about lens mainly set at 24mm. The difference in the images I've taken is amazing, either that of this monkey is learning (perhaps both?). I found the additional money for the nikon is worth while here in the US just for the 5yr warrenty, I'm lucky my company has a sales office not to far from where I bought it so claiming warrenty is not difficult.

Mind you the 12-24mm only just fits between the bars of the perimeter fence at the Whitehouse. Just keep in mind 70-200VR's here will let you see the other guys with higher power lenses looking back at you, its just that bit underneath their lens that will scare you.

My wife and I are off to Alaska in a few weeks time so I'm sure my new purchase will spend some time at 12-14mm trying to take in the vista's. It was certainly part of my thinking when I bought it. Only time will tell, stayed tuned for psionic's adventures in June.

with mudders and radars comments, take a selection of lenses with you. I've used the 50mm f1.4 and 18-70mm DX at times for landscapes. It depends on what you want to stuff into your image. Still saving my quarters for a 70-200VR that might have to be an early xmas present.

YMMV.

/M.

[Big Red]

copied from dpreview ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The April Pop Photo gave high marks to the Pentax DA 12-24 zoom. It appears that it might have bested all other 12-24's and other wides... Especially for low distortion.
1. "Excellent category" sharpness and contrast through out the range.

2. SQF (subjective quality factor) scored almost identical to the Tokina, for those wondering if they might be the same design.
3. Particularly impressive were the low distortion numbers:

At 12 (.30 percent) (
at 18 (.06 percent) (Imperceptible distortion)
at 24 (.01 percent)

Compared to the 14 2.8 Pentax:

At 14: (.30 percent) (Light falloff gone by F 3.3, very impressive. Smile

Compared to the Nikon 12-24:
At 12 (1.31 percent) (very visible)
At 18 (.56) (visible)
At 24 (.57) (visible)

Compared to the Canon 10-22:
At 10 (.52 percent)
At 14 (.11 percent)
At 20 (.22 percent)

Commenting on the Canon's numbers in the March issue: "No other ultrawide comes close" I think they will have to revise that after the old Pentax showing! Smile
Compared to the Tokina:
At 12 (1.22 percent)
At 18 (.45 percent)
At 24 (.33 percent)

Compared to the Sigma 10-20:
At 10 (1.26 percent)
At 20 (.35 percent)

Compared to the Sigma 12-24
At 12 (.22 percent)
At 24 (.93 percent)

Tamron 11-18:
At 11 (1.01 percent)
At 18 (.55 percent)

4. Excellent vignetting numbers as well.
Light falloff gone by 5.6 at 12 and not noticable at all at 18 or 24.

This makes it the best all-around performer, on the charts anyway, of any zoom lens out there on the wide end, in my opinion. Let's all take advantage of that $100 rebate and get a 12-24! (at least those who haven't gotten one already... Smile
I'm ordering mine soon!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ i have the pentax one and like it a lot but just thought the comparo might interest some of you ... shane]

one of the best lenses around is the zenitar 16 f2.8 fisheye but i'm not sure if you can get it for the nikon ... i know you can get it for the pentax M42 screw mount [as well as pentax K and canon] so you might be able to get an adapter for it.
because of the small amount of fisheye effect on my 1.5 crop digital you can centre it on the horizon and not notice it but you can also defish it using PTlens if you like.
_________________