Zeiss lenses

Hi, i am intrested in landscape photography, i am about to buy a new camera. Should i spend the majority

of my money on a 28mm Zeiss Distagon lense and get a second hand manual camera?. As surley its the

lense what makes all the difference

Jamie,

 

The new Zeiss lenses series will work on Nikon D200 and +. Metering will work too.

If you really interested in Landscape photography, you should seriously consider a

second-hand medium format or even a 4x5 inch field camera. You will take fewer but

more well-thought photos. After scanning, you can go back to the digital workflow.

I have the 3 formats, and I barely use the digital anymore (including the Distagon..).

Ebay, keh.com and middlewest can provide good outfit for landscape.

Enjoy.

At apertures used for landscape work, Zeiss is not required. They really are not that much better than Nikon. Maybe a Little at the two largest stops which you don`t use for landscapes. If you want the best wide open performance, get the latest Leica lenses.

 

I don`t know if you will be using digital, but you will be pleased with a Nikon 18/70 zoom. It is equal to or better than my Nikon primes at landscape apertures like 5.6 or 8.

 

If you will use film, Nikon manual primes are pretty inexpensive right now. You certainly do not need fast lenses or auto focus for landscapes. I bought the primes for my D200 to see better in low light, but for sunlight pics on my D200, I see no advantage over the standard 18/70 lens.

 

I have an adapter to put some Leica lenses on the Nikon. They are better, but marginally and it is in dark tone separation and overall tone quality, not sharpness, that is different.

 

If you want real quality, use medium format and you will see a large jump at 11x14 size prints and above. The best lens in the world on a small piece of film does only so much.

I would personally find a one focal length kit too restrictive for serious landscape...the argument "zoom with your feet" doesn't really cut it for distant subject matter. For the cost of a Zeiss you could pick up several Nikkor primes or a decent zoom. By all means the Zeiss is a beautifully made lens, I just think you'd quickly feel the pinch for additional options. Also, landscapes do not only entail wide angle perspectives, there are countless telephoto opportunities as well.

I would not go crazy on expensive lenses until you are a little better grounded.

 

A 28mm lens is not that wide on a film camera, and definitely not wide on a cropping DSLR. Secondly, it is not necessary to use a wide-angle lens for landscapes.

 

Most of my landscapes are taken at 50mm with a D2x, which is comparable to a 75mm (medium-telephoto) on a film camera. I find that gives a pleasing balance between near and far objects. A wide-angle lens is used to emphasize objects in the foreground, not to "get everything" in one shot - which is an immature view of landscape photography.

 

For big enlargements with lots of detail, which is typical of landscapes, you should consider medium or large format film as suggested above. You are limited to 11x14 inches with 35mm film before grain and detail loss become objectionable, or 16x20 inches with a 12MP+ DSLR.

<em>"... As surley its the lense what makes all the difference..." </em>(sic)</p>

 

<p>I'd argue that it's "your mind's eye" that makes all the difference. Equipment

is secondary.

While equipment may be secondary, within that category lenses are probably more important

to the image than are the bodies. Yet as others have suggested, the format (LF, MF, 35mm,

digital) needs to be considered. I use all except 35mm, and I'm split between digital (Canon

5D with several L lenses; use mostly the 24-70 f2.8) and MF (Pentax 645 and more recently

the Mamiya 7II). The weak link for LF at the moment is scanning. There is a lot to consider

when choosing a format (and a lens). (BTW, I'm 95% landscape.)