Best single landscape lens for a D800?

<p>Thanks, Michael, great info on the Nikon tech guide. And James, that is a stunning shot, and I totally hear you about MF at night. If I forget a flashlight to illuminate something to focus on with my 12-24mm AF-S, I'm scrooged.</p>

<p>Hands down, the absolute BEST landscape lens that Nikon makes is the 14-24mm f2.8 G. No arguments please!</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Seriously . . . if you had to choose just one lens, that should be it. You can crop to 35mm and even 50mm equivalents (though the image at the 50mm equivalent would be about 9 MP). BTW, you can print a good 9 MP image at 20x30 with good results.</p>

<p>With some other lens, you will not be able to go wider, and that is the big limiting problem with other lenses. Better to have too much in the shot and crop than to not have enough. Cropping is wonderful. So is the 14-24mm f2.8 G.</p>

<p>Scott, the lens is in a class of its own, as is the fumbling work around to try and get filters working on it.</p>

Thank you james, also for the "technical" page of your site, and the diglloyd.com site.

So you have chosen the E version. I would be tempted too, I just wonder what kind of landscape features could generate moiré effects.

<p>I just lost everything I typed in the past few minutes (gotta stop doing that) so here is the condensed version.</p>

<p>I used a Nikon 14mm f2.8 for seven years and the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is a lens that I have often considered and still may add to my collection at some time. I have now chosen the route of Canon TS-E lenses and am currently looking to add to my 17 TS-E. I sometimes use it with a 1.4x which works very well but I also want something longer. Due to budgetary constraints this year I will likely add one of the used Nikon 35mm PC lenses from the film days, and use it with a converter as well, at times. All shift lenses are manual focus anyway, it just means I have to use stopped-down metering techniques with the Nikon lens on my 5D II. While tilt should be useful for expanding depth of field I have not spent the time yet to figure this out, so I am not too worried to work without it using Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>As far as Nikon goes I would be considering the 14-24, 24 PC, 24 PC-E and/or 35 PC. There are several versions of each of the older PC lenses.</p>

<p>I find shift to be indispensable since I rarely place the horizon anywhere near the centre of the frame, and since I am surrounded by trees. I am also able to shift and stitch images to create 42 MP files from my 21 MP camera. Through shift/stitch techniques the D800 is capable of providing 72 MP images to create 400-600 MB 16 bit tiff files that can easily challenge vastly more expensive medium format backs. A tripod ensures images with the least transition problems and the shift provides distortion free composites not achievable by typical panning/stitching techniques. A still subject is required. So far I have not had too much trouble with leaf and cloud movement. Once you shift, you will never go back!</p>

<p>For landscape photography I would avoid the D800E. I used a Kodak SLRn, which does not have an AA filter, for three years. Although the lack of an AA filter went largely unnoticed it did create problems specifically with tree branches often enough to be a concern. I am happy not to have that problem now. I have used enough full frame cameras now to know that the lack of an AA filter boosts resolution by an equivalence of 10-20% MP. I doubt the filtering system on the D800E gives all this back so likely consider a 5-10% increase. If one is going from a 12 MP D700 to a 36 MP D800, the slight increase offered by the D800E is terribly insignificant, especially considering possible moire concerns. The Kodak SLRn was primarily discontinued due to critics of the moire effect, so I am finding it difficult to understand why medium format backs and now the D800E are left alone. We will have to wait and see the D800E and D800 to know the differences.</p>

<p>P.S. So much for being condensed!</p>

<p>P.S. #2 The Nikon 8mm f2.8 AIS is my next most used landscape lens! </p>

<p>I have no personal experience of cameras without AA filters but on the few occasions I have seen moire pop up it has almost always been the usual causes - roof tiles/repetitive architectural details and on fabrics. The only other exception to that rule is when I saw some emerge on the feathers of a kea. But I have never seen it in a landscape as such. It won't be much of an issue for me - I hope!</p>

<p>Repeat post deleted</p>

<p>Yes, Scott, but I still don't really see why this is such a big deal. It may be because I don't own one. There are many possible shots of the girl on the fence, I don't necessarily consider the one shown to be any better than the many other possible shots. If you don't have a tilt-shift you can't take that shot, but you could take many other shots that are probably quite as good, only of course different. This is a failure, I assume, of my imagination to understand the particular appeal for landscapes. Thanks for the info though.</p>

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>The linked image was just an illustration, not a mind blowing picture :-) Certainly playing with one opens up completely new possibilities and compositions, it isn't until you can compose whilst keeping the camera level that you realise how much distortion is created when you lean a wide or ultrawide forward or backward. But that is just shift, for landscape work tilt is often very useful as well, and not just for the fake toy look. Complete control over the plane of focus is invaluable for high quality reproduction of your vision. Infinity focus, zone focus and hyper focal focusing are weak compromises when compared to well used tilt.<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml"> This link</a> demonstrates the difference between the sharpness at infinity when tilt is used.</p>

<p>The large image circle of the 24mm PC lens as Scott pointed out is the way to go if you do not want to correct the fall off in Photoshop. When I used to photograph with large format cameras my lens choices were based on the image circle or the area the lens covers on the film. Check out Ansel Adams work and the lenses he used as a guide. His book "Examples" show some of the lenses he used. If I had one choice of a lens for the D800 and landscape work I would choose the 24mm PC.<br>

http://www.dykinga.com/Gear.html Jacks lens choices will be of some help too. He worked with large format for many years. Notice he uses the PC lenses with the D3.</p>

 

<p>Truly, if you are serious about shooting landscapes, tilt seems to be a requirement, though I have shot some landscape photos that I consider quite good, even though I did not use a tilt lens. Also, most typical tilt lenses for cameras that are not large format just don't tilt enough. Eight or ten degrees of tilt just does not allow for enough control over the plane of focus, in my opinion. This is why I would choose to shoot with a 4x5 field camera with a convertible and two wide-angle lenses. A three-lens combo with 5 focal lengths should pretty much cover it. Of course, I would take a good digital along, just because I like to shoot thousands of photos on a trip, rather than just a few dozen. Then there are the quick shots that just can't be made with a large format camera. Ultimately, fifteen degrees or more of tilt will be necessary for some landscape shots, and as far as I know, there is no DSLR lens that is capable of that. Maybe something with a bellows, but then you are limited on your field of view. If you just HAVE to shoot digital, consider a BetterLight back (very expensive!) or some other digital back solution. There is no substitute for large format.</p>

<p>This is not to say that you can't make a good landscape photo with a D800. Thousands of photographers will. Ultimately, I believe that the extra photos and portability outweigh the advantages of extreme tilts and shifts, but I plan to start shooting with an 8x10, when I get REALLY serious. I believe digital will NEVER reach the quality of today's 8x10 cameras and film. Nothing beats a high-quality 800 megapixel scan, and that's what I was getting with my 4x5. An 8x10 is capable of 4 times that (3 Gigapixels). Computers need to get faster though. They just don't have the power to handle such monster images yet (not the affordable computers anyway).</p>

<p><em>"Eight or ten degrees of tilt just does not allow for enough control over the plane of focus, in my opinion. "</em><br /> <em><br /></em><br /> <em><br /></em>That is a crazy thing to say, the Canon 17mm TS-E, a superlative tilt shift landscape lens, has 6˚ of tilt, that puts the J point 6" away from the camera, what situation could you possibly envisage where that would not be enough? From a more normal perspective, around 50" above the ground, you need less than 1˚ of forward tilt to get the plane of focus on the ground! The 24 mm TS-E lens J point is just 8" away from the camera at maximum tilt of 6˚. 15˚ of tilt is a comically high figure for DSLR focal length lens use.</p>

<p>In the same boat with a preordered D800 and probably don't have 2 lenses that are worthy. I do like old MF lenses and have quite a few of them to try. Was intrigued to read the post commenting on the PC lenses. I have one of the old 35mm PC lenses but don't have a clue how to really use it. Maybe I'll start trying to learn. <br>

I shoot a lot of landscapes with a D700 and usually use a 28-300mm VR lens. I seem to shoot a lot more at the 28mm end. Sometimes I think I'd be better served just using one of the old MF 28mm F2.8 lenses I have. Some of the cheaper ones have been big surprises on the D700, maybe there will be some surprises for the D800 too. One of my favorites is a 28mm f2.8 Vivitar close focus I got for $35. Can't wait to get the D800 in my hands to see what some of these vintage lenses will do. Maybe I won't have to spend another $3k for a few lenses. </p>

<p>Hey Scott, please explain. I am confused by your statement about one degree of tilt. In my experience, one degree of tilt does almost nothing to the plane of focus, and the HUGE six degrees that you are talking about, which the "superlative" Canon TSE 17mm f4 L is capable of just does not cut the mustard, as far as I'm concerned. If 6 degrees of tilt was all that is necessary, please explain why most view cameras are capable of 15 degrees or more . . . PLEASE!<br>

Here is a video, which explains the Scheimpflug principle, just in case YOU are the one who is confused:<br>

http://youtu.be/gR4m70xr9mE<br>

Please also give me a better link than I have below, which describes this J point you are talking about:<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-point#J-point</p>

<p>Just so you are aware, I understand that it's not a good idea to shoot landscapes with the lens aperture wide open. It's much better to shoot at f8 (or maybe f11 or even f16). I understand that this increases depth of field dramatically. I still believe that a low shot of a landscape with a field of flowers in the foreground requires a lens to tilt forward about 30 to 40 degrees, depending on the tilt of the camera. It depends on whether the field is flat and how much of the sky you are trying to capture. You might be able to get away with 15 degrees, if you are shooting with a really small aperture, and you are lifting your camera up a foot or two. It sort of depends on how small the flowers are and how wide your lens is. Of course there is more to it than this. I am simplifying things, which is always necessary to some degree.</p>

<p>Scott, happily.</p>

<p>There are two key issues which you seem to be missing.</p>

<p>The first is focal length, the longer the focal length the more tilt you need for the same effect, view cameras use much longer focal lengths than DSLR's. A DSLR focal length is less than 1/3 a 4x5 for the same angle of view, but 4x5 lenses don't, generally, go wider than 90mm, that would be a 28mm lens on a 135 format DSLR. To get the same framed and tilted image on a 4x5 and 135 format DSLR you would use, 4x5-90mm-15˚ tilt vs 135-28mm-5˚ tilt. If you compare a 135 format 17mm image you need 1/5 the tilt of a 90mm on a 4x5, my 6˚ of tilt equals your 18˚ of tilt.</p>

<p>The second is the hinge line, Scheimpflug only takes us half the way, this is understandable as he was primarily interested in infinity focused images of battlefields from a balloon. The real key to using tilt effectively is the hinge line and the effect focus has on our plane of focus. This was explained by Harold Merklinger in his seminal work <a href="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/download.html">"Focusing The View Camera"</a>. While it is an authoritative paper it can be a little overwhelming, but he made a couple of fantastic gif's that illustrate what is actually going on. They are both <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html">on this page</a> that also has a shorter explanation of the effects.</p>

<p>The J point is "<em>the height of the lens above the plane of focus</em>". The J point is dictated by the amount of tilt, the consequent angle of the plane of focus is dictated by the lens focus and rotates around the J point. Tilt, via Scheimpflug, moves the J point (which is a line) <strong>and</strong> the Scheimpflug point (which is also a line); lens focus, via Merklinger, moves the Scheimpflug point <strong>but not</strong> the J point.</p>

<p>If you follow this it becomes obvious that the man in your video does not understand this, the easy way to focus and tilt in one step is this. Choose two points on your desired plane of focus, a near one and a far one. With no tilt focus on the close one, then look at the far point and tilt until it is sharp, done. This can be done very effectively and quickly on DSLR's with a live view feature.</p>

<p>Here is an image I took a few hours ago, it was with a 17mm lens, the camera was around 30" off the water, the plane of focus was the water and I used around 1.5˚ of forward tilt, I also shifted up to bring the horizon down.</p><div></div>

<p>Here are two 100% crops from the above image, they are completely unsharpened.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p><div></div>

<p>I need to clarify a little between different camera formats and the way they focus and tilt. Wide and Ultrawide angle small format T/S lenses are special in that they are retrofocus lenses, this has interesting effects on some resultant images. But they are not lacking tilt, if anything they are lacking focus past infinity.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-ii.shtml">This review</a>, by Harold Merklinger himself, goes into the effect of focusing past infinity, and also the curious phenomena of converging verticals when applying lens tilt to retrofocus tilt lenses, sometimes necessitating reverse body tilt. I demonstrated this before in <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00XN0C?start=10">an earlier thread.</a></p>

<p>I realise I made a typo earlier too, <em>"With no tilt focus on the close one, then look at the far point and tilt until it is sharp"</em> should read <em>"With no tilt focus on the <strong>far</strong> one, then look at the<strong> close</strong> point and tilt until it is sharp"</em></p>

<p>Robin said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am also mystified by the great appeal that a PCE lens has for so many people. How many pictures do you need to take where the prominent foreground recedes into the distance? PCE: yes for architecture and interiors, but why so essential for landscapes unless the above is the only kind of shot you want to take?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The primary application of a tilt-shift lens for the landscape photographer is to shift the plane of focus, not necessarily to correct for keystoning (as one would more commonly apply in architectural photography). Known as a "Scheimpflug," tilting or swinging the lens plane allows you to shift the plane of focus so that it is no longer parallel to the image plane. A common example would be to tilt the lens forward to shift the plane of focus to the ground. This way, you can maintain a moderate f/stop, yet still have much of the ground in-focus, from a few inches from camera, to miles away, depending on lens height, and the maximum available tilt. To effect a Scheimpflug, you tilt the lens plane so that the desired plane of focus, the lens plane, and the image plane, all intersect.</p>

<p>Best single lens for landscapes?</p>

<p>My vote would be for the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift lens (for reasons posted above). I plan to buy a D800 for cityscape time-exposures, and the PC-E Nikkor 24mm is the first lens on my list for that camera. All landscapes are not wide-angle images, you say? True. My second landscape lens choice would likely be a 70-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Robin said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am also mystified by the great appeal that a PCE lens has for so many people. How many pictures do you need to take where the prominent foreground recedes into the distance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nevermind. I think you already understood that. I think you were looking for the "shift" answer, which has already been answered by others.</p>

<p>Scott:</p>

<p>I just read your latter posts on tilt--very detailed and informative! I wanted to ask you--how many (hypothetical) degrees of tilt would be required for an FX body, using a 24mm lens, with the body's baseplate sitting on the ground, for the ground-plane to become the chosen plane of focus? Regardless of format, wouldn't that still require nearly 45-degrees of tilt?</p>

<p>ralph,</p>

<p>That specific question is unanswerable by me, but I think I can get you as close as you could ever use. There are several legitimate reasons,</p>

<ul>

<li>firstly, even complex tilt calculations rely on inverse trigonometric calculations like this. Tilt angle=arcsin (focal length/ lens height above plane of focus). But this breaks down when values go above 1 for focal length/ height above plane of focus. i.e. J has to be more than the focal length.</li>

<li>Retrofocus tilt lenses don't quite fit in with extreme calculations anyway, and a 135 format DSLR 24mm tilt lens has to be retrofocus. </li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>The distortion it would introduce would make the image unworkable.</li>

<li>The common rule of thumb calculation is easier but also breaks down at very small J distances and larger than 15˚ tilts, though it is good enough most of the time to work well.</li>

</ul>

 

 

<ul>

<li>The simplified calculation is: Tilt angle= focal length (in millimeters)/5x J (in feet)</li>

</ul>

<p>So if we use our simpler rule of thumb to work with a more easily calculated, and realistic, figure of J at, say, 4 inches from the center of the lens, we get, 24/1.5=16˚, but it changes very fast at such small J distances, for instance make J 8 inches and you get 7˚ of tilt, at 12 inches just 4.8˚. Also don't forget, these figures are making zero allowance for body tilt, focus tilt, or depth of field.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, and I didn't make too many typos. Scott.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Thanks a lot, Scott! Your detailed explanation is very much appreciated!</p>

<p>Ralph,</p>

<p>I know what shift and tilt do. My point is that I fail to see why people get all worked about them for landscapes. I still don't get it, despite Scott's expositions. To me they are a mighty waste of money - they allow you to take certain types of shots - but I, personally, have only on a very few occasions wished I had one, the rest of the time you are stuck with a $2000+ slow, bulky lens with knobs on it. Each to their own. No insult to those who love 'em. If I was a product or architecture professional - then I would use one I'm sure...If I needed one it's the kind of lens I would rent, not buy.</p>