IowaGuy Loc: Iowa

I use a D-180 and my main go to lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8 when I can carry my pack. In a walk about situation in a city I frequently use the 28-120mm f/4 with more than adequate results.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Ditto this. That's what I use.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

way back when, when i was at the Times, one of our photographers, Einar Chindmark, as good friends with Ernst. needless to say Einar used his leica, the same one he had since 1954. i remember him and Ernst going out together to photograph. rarely did Einar use anything but the 35mm summicron on his m3. needless to say, both of them were remarkable photographers. what i learned from both was how to stay anonymous in a crowd, and quietly, make the photograph.

small cameras, small lenses and normal clothes, nothing that would catch the eye. sometimes, given the domestic conditions, suits, white shirts and tie made all the difference in the world, to the people being photographed.

Einar also worked directly with leitz, over the decades, helping them improve an already legendary camera body and lenses. quiet, unassuming and very patient - these were the qualities i learned, and still apply, decades later, from Einar.

i never saw either one, ever, change the lens on his camera.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I find it interesting when O.P.'s start a thread asking what the best landscape lens is. What happens is that everybody then talks about their own particular go-to landscape lens. Perhaps the better question would "what focal length is used most often when shooting landscapes, and what focal length spread is used most often?"

What focal lengths do other hoggers find useful in landscape?

For me, I find that 24mm works very well. There are times that I'd like to go wider, and times that I'd like to zoom in on a particular formation, but 24mm is a good start. That's why the 10-24mm on a crop camera works very well, or 24-70mm on a full frame. The 20mm prime (ff) also intrigues me.

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

And you'd probably get the same responses.

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

Hi doc9900,

I shoot a Nikon D800. I use 3 different lenses for landscapes. I use the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, the AF-S Nikkor 20mm f1.8G ED, and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM ART.

The 24-120mm is pretty much always on my camera, as I find it a good all around lens. It is quite sharp throughout its focal range. The VR works well and is useful in low light situations. I found that the lens does have some vignetting problems, but it is nothing that can't be fixed in post.

I really like the 20mm f1.8G lens. It's autofocus is very fast and quiet. It is also very sharp in the center, and it handles chromatic aberrations, distortion, ghosting and flare pretty well. It handles coma pretty well when you stop the lens down to say f2.8, so I like to use this lens for astrophotography as well as wide landscape views.

The Sigma 35mm ART lens also autofocuses very fast and accurately. It renders colors extremely well, and has very little distortion. It is a solidly built lens and it handles very well. It does lack a gasket at the lens mount though, which is something I thought a lens of this quality would have.

I am very happy with these three lenses, and would recommend them to anyone looking for landscape lenses.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There have been some excellent suggestions....

Landscape photography often calls for a wide angle lens. And, more often than not it's done during good daylight or can be done using a tripod and making a longer exposure. So a landscape lens doesn't need to have a large aperture (i.e., doesn't need to be "fast"). A smaller aperture wide angle lens can be less expensive, lighter weight and more compact... but also might be sharper edge-to-edge and have less vignetting issues than a larger aperture version of the same.

Landscapes also often might call for some sort of filter.... a circular polarizer or neutral density are a couple commonly used for digital landscape photography. Some wide angle lenses have protruding (convex) front elements that prevent you from attaching a standard filter, though it may be possible to use a special adapter and oversize filters on them. Another thing to watch out for is rotating front lens barrels, which can be a pain in the arse if using a circular polarizer, for example, where the filter is rotated to adjust it's effect.

Finally, you'll have to decide prime versus zoom. A wide prime can be smaller, lighter and less expensive... but a zoom can be more versatile. A prime also can be better "corrected" for even illumination (less vignetting), to minimize distortions, have less chromatic aberration or the edge in other image quality factors than an optically more complex zoom. But, again, a zoom can be more versatile.

Personally I shoot with Canon gear and my full frame-capable landscape lenses are primarily a 20/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. I am planning to eventually get a 14, 15 or 17mm prime, but haven't really needed it. Higher priority to me are a 24/2.8 and 35/2, since Canon has substantially upgraded those two models recently. I might also add a 16-35/4 to my kit, for those times when I don't want to carry a handful of primes.

Personally I won't get Canon's 16-35/2.8 or 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 for landscape work.... Even though they are great lenses, I just don't need them, with their extra size, weight and price. I also don't really need Canon's amazing 11-24/4... ultra expensive, big and heavy, plus with a protruding front element that makes standard filters unusable.

But, to each his own. If you are doing a lot of night or pre-dawn, twilight shots or astrophotography... you might want a larger aperture lens that will make for a brighter viewfinder in low light conditions.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Of all the recommendations here, the one lens I would avoid as if it were radioactive and covered in deadly viruses is the 28-300. It is just not in the same league as the other lenses. the 24-120 is ok, but as many of the other wide angle zooms, weak in the corners and edges.

As far as using wide and ultra wide lenses for landscape - it makes sense to visit an art museum that has on exhibit the landscapes of the masters. I challenge any advocate of these lenses to identify even a single painting that provides the same perspective attained with a wide angle or wider lens. They will come up empty on that one. Ah, but how about the field of view of an ultra wide? This is why the great landscape photographers use panorama stitching, which is akin to a great painter turning his/her head to encompass a wider view. By and large, the pano landscape is a far more effective and natural looking one than anything produced by a wide or ultra wide lens. Not that the wide lenses are useless. They are certainly excellent at creating an illusion of depth and dimension, especially in close quarters. But they are a specialty lens, and not always the best choice for the majority of landscapes.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

But aren't you talking about YOUR choice of focal length(s)? If you want wider, learn to take and stitch a pano. Just sayin'

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

May I post an image? I took one the other night, using my 16-35 that illustrates why so many of us are high on that lens.

Davethompson

I'm 67 and camera weight is a concern but decided to jump from D300 to full frame and for 2 yrs decided the D810 would be it. BUT I kept reading about how complex settings can be and is big, etc. At the last minute, I stumbled on reviews of the D750 and it is smaller but by some reviews outperforms the D810. After feeling it, I fell in love with it. Have used at three friend's kids weddings as a backup or secondary photographer it was great!!! The dynamic range is unbelievable.

IowaGuy Loc: Iowa

A more basic question would be "What is a landscape image?". It could be considered the grand landscape, an all encompassing very wide angle view; or it could be a small selection of that grand landscape, an abstraction of the greater landscape if you would. It seems to me that the lens needs to be selected to meet the usual requirements of the individual photographer. Anything more is just noise (my prior post included).

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Totally agree. However if the original question had specified the type of shot, and reduced the conversation to sharpness (for example) at a specific focal length, then at least we could have a decent technical discussion and compare test results. Interesting to see most of the responses were Nikon shooter (I think without counting). What does that say?

wattsimages

I use Filters on the 14-24? They are obnoxiously large, but they work really well. at one time I had both the 16 – 35 and the 14 – 24, and the latter is it much sharper lens. However it's bigger and heavier, and everything that goes with it filters included is also.