HELP !! Landscape Glass

[neilk]

Alright
Bought the D80, thanks for the help
Ive taken a couple of wicked photos with the 18-135mm i have, which is good.
But i want to get a good wideangle glass for my scenery shots. (landscape, waterfalls)

Will a fisheye lense be good for landscapes and waterfalls, or will it look to convex/concave ? Im pretty sure it is no good but want to ask for certain !!!

If i fisheye is no good, id like to ask your opinion on a good wide angle glass to take these types of photos with

Thanks in advance for anyone who replies

All the best for the new year

[lukeo]

Depends on your budget, the Nikon 12-24mm is a fantastic lense, but very expensive. I bought a Sigma 10-20mm and am extremely happy with it.

[W00DY]

Hi Neilk,

I decided on the Tokina 12-24mm lens and I love it, I find it great for landscapes (and portraits).

I got it from Poon when I visited HK in January so have used it for almost a year.

Cheers.

[Oscar]

Hi Neilk, for landscape you would be best with a WA zoom or a WA prime lens - I don't think the fisheye would be a good option for you.

With the 18-135 you have some of the wide end covered - the 12-24s or the sigma 10-20 would get you wider and give you good results for lanscape shots.

Cheers, Mick

[Killakoala]

A wide angle zoom (10-20 or 12-24) will suit you much better for landscapes. There's little difference between them these days. The Nikon 12-24 is a bit better than the others but costs more.

The fisheye is not ideal for landscapes, although it can be used. You will probably need to 'de-fish' the image to straighten it out.

[Mj]

Neil,

I recommend you do some browsing of photos here featuring the 10.5 FE and some of the other wide angle options. Peter Stubbs makes good use of the former and others a getting good use of the others.

[photograham]

The Nikon 12 - 24 is great to use anywhere and I use it on a D2X. My wife has the Sigma 10 - 20 on D70s and has also produced excellent results. The Sigma is markedly cheaper and the extra width can also produce some excellent effects, such as over the top of a flower/bush in foreground and then with great background. Just depends on your budget.

[stadl]

Some months back I borrowed a Nikon 12-24 at one of the meets, and played with it for an evening, and it got me hooked on the UWA options. While the Nikon was out of my price range the Tokina and Sigma were. I ended up getting the Tokina and since then it has probably spent more time on my D70 than any other lens.

For landscapes etc, I found just using it at 12mm (90 degree field horizontally on DX sensor) and cropping vertically for a 2:1 aspect ratio gave nice panorama city skyline type shots that print up nicely even at 8x16 (A3 trimmed to go through an A4 printer).

Indoors, I've used it to take photos of a friend's amateur theatre show, where I could stand 1m from the stage and get a 6ft actor front and centre with the ensemble cast arranged in the background and all in focus. I even used it last week at a friend's pub gig (Only used the 12-24/4 and 50/1.4, and the most interesting shots came from the 12-24)

It just seems to offer so much more than the kit lens at 18mm.

[Yi-P]

The legendary landscape Nikkor is the 17-35 to be used on the old film days, can still be used with DSLR and give you wonderful results, but it may not be wide enough for some people.

Then the Nikkor 12-24 is one for the DSLR and its another wonderful lens

On the budget count, Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 will do wonderful jobs matching or just under the Nikkor.

[Matt. K]

It's curious that when beginner photographers think landscape photography they automatically think 'wide angle lens'. You can shoot landscapes with a 300mm lens! Most beginners choose a lens that is too wide and then stick with it while they struggle to produce good landscapes. Unfortunately, wide angle lenses (unless used by an expert) have a signature that screams 'wide angle'. The shots become cliched and the photographer....thinking that because the wide angle lens was used then it must be a landscape shot constricts his style and imagination. When thinking of landscape photography do not lock yourself into any wide angle format lens! My preference for landscapes on a digital camera is around 28mm. That equates to nearly 45mm of focal length. Sometime 85mm is more appropriate,
Here's a challange.....go out and shoot 50 landscape pictures using a 50mm lens. Then shoot 50 using a 20mm lens. Look at your images carefully and ask other to look at them. Learn from the results. Ask yourself "what's the difference between shooting with a 12mm lens close up or a 50mm lens further away?" Good landscapes are bloody difficult and are not the product of a certain type of lens...rather they are the product of a certain type of vision.

[Oz_Beachside]

great advise MattK, and a solid challenge there! I find the same myself, often I am cropping shots from my 12-24, and would have preferred to have had about 35mm on me at the time.

[Oscar]

Neilk - a couple of other options for you to consider (and add to the good advice already shared) - if you want to get "a better quality" lens for landscapes and waterfalls:

For landscapes and pano shots: If you get a good 50mm prime you could (with practice and preferably a good tripod) take several shots and stitch them together. This has produced some wonderful results - you will need program to do this.

For waterfalls: What FOV do you think you need? Perhaps you could get the 20mm or 24mm prime lens. The aim for your waterfall shots should be able to capture the whole waterfall in the one shot where wind may move the water trail. BTW if you are already getting some wicked shots perhaps you should hold off on any new purchase until you are definite in the lens you need - you could perhaps arrange to demo some.

Hey, can you post some of your wicked shots (and the exif detail if possible) for us all to see.

Cheers, Mick

[Aussie Dave]

It's curious that when beginner photographers think landscape photography they automatically think 'wide angle lens'. You can shoot landscapes with a 300mm lens! Most beginners choose a lens that is too wide and then stick with it while they struggle to produce good landscapes. Unfortunately, wide angle lenses (unless used by an expert) have a signature that screams 'wide angle'. The shots become cliched and the photographer....thinking that because the wide angle lens was used then it must be a landscape shot constricts his style and imagination. When thinking of landscape photography do not lock yourself into any wide angle format lens! My preference for landscapes on a digital camera is around 28mm. That equates to nearly 45mm of focal length. Sometime 85mm is more appropriate,
Here's a challange.....go out and shoot 50 landscape pictures using a 50mm lens. Then shoot 50 using a 20mm lens. Look at your images carefully and ask other to look at them. Learn from the results. Ask yourself "what's the difference between shooting with a 12mm lens close up or a 50mm lens further away?" Good landscapes are bloody difficult and are not the product of a certain type of lens...rather they are the product of a certain type of vision.

Very pertinent advise Matt. WA lenses come into their own when you cannot get further back to take the shot you want (with the composition you are wanting to capture).

If you can get back far enough then, as you mention, you can theoretically take the same photo "compositionally" with a 200, 300 or 600mm lens.

To go with your exercise/challenge, perhaps those interested in seeing the difference could take two photos of the same scene (with the same composition), one with say a 50mm lens and another with a tele lens (200 or 300mm)...most people would have access to these focal lengths....and cmpare the two images.

It is interesting that many people buy WA lenses, to capture their "Landscape" shots, only to go home and de-fish or lens-correct them....instead of maybe using a longer focal length and moving back further to take the shot (and I know, you cannot "always" move back further), hopefully avoiding much of the lens distortion

[gstark]

Dave,

Or as Oscar suggests, using a pano technique to stich together a few shots, and give themselves a much better, much more detailed image than they might get from just a single shot using a WA lens.