Jump to content

What Lens Would Be a Good Choice for D610 Landscape Photography


diane_madura

Recommended Posts

<p>I was ready to get a Nikon 24-70 for a D610. But then today I read Shun's post in another thread:</p>

<p>"The 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S has a similar design objective as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. These are party, event lenses, mostly used indoors at weddings, etc. They are at their best when the subject is 10, 15 feet away, i.e. around 3 to 5 meters."</p>

<p>I do have the 17-55 that I've used on my APS sensor cameras, and I have to agree with Shun that's it's not that great for landscapes. If I get the 24-70 for the D610, will I be disappointed with the results for landscape photography? Is there another lens that might be better for landscape photography?</p>

<p>Everything I've read about the 24-70 says it's a pretty nice lens. Even customer samples of landscapes on the B and H web site look pretty good to me.</p>

<p>While the lens I got with the D610 (Nikon 24-85) is OK, I must say I think there are other lenses which would make better use of the camera's capabilities.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Your 17-55 covers about the same angle(s) of view on DX as the 24-70 does on a D610 - except 24mm goes a little wider, but not much. So if you're not happy with the landscape results you're getting with the 17-55, then you need to analyse in what way they're "not that great".</p>

<p>Unsharp? Lacking contrast? Not wide enough? What exactly is disappointing about the 17-55? If you can put your finger on that, then you'll be a lot closer to selecting <em>your</em> ideal landscape lens for the D610.</p>

<p>In a previous thread I voiced my opinion that there's really no such thing as a one-size-fits-all ideal "landscape lens", and that good landscapes can be taken with almost any focal length. It's really a very individual choice that <em>you</em> need to make Diane.</p>

<p>BTW, if you do decide you need a 24-70mm, I wouldn't rule out Tamron's excellent SP VC offering. Save yourself half the price of Nikon's lens and spend the money on visiting a stunning landscape location.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMHO in most non-professional cases, it isn't the lack of capabilities of the lens, but rather the limitations of the photographer. Yes, better corrected, more complex, lenses may make the job easier, but in the end it is the photographer's knowledge of how to best use a lens, tripod, lighting, occasionally filtration, and the nuances of the cameras method of capture - be it digital or film, and finally post processing, to achieve the desired results. My $0.02.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Diane, as we discussed on the other thread, lenses such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX are designed to capture events, parties, e.g. weddings .... Those are workhouse lenses and are on the heavy side.</p>

<p>As far as I know both the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S (introduced on August 23, 2007 along with the D3 and D300) and the latest 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR (using 82mm filters) are fine lenses. However, they are fast zooms and are big, especially the new VR version. If your landscape photography involves a lot of hiking, I would select a lighter lens, especially if you are also carrying a lot of other items.</p>

<p>Of course landscape photography doesn't always involve wide-angle lenses, but if you use a lot of 24mm, 35mm type, I think the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S is a much better choice than a heavy 24-70mm/f2.8. The 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S you already have is not bad either, but a lot of those 24-nn zooms are a bit weak on the wide end such that you are better off getting 24mm and 35mm from a lens where such focal lengths don't fall on the widest end of the zoom range.</p>

<p>Another lens I like a lot for landscape work is the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E, but that is a different category of lens with other restrictions, e.g. no AF and is not exactly easy to use.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like to use the 24-70/2.8 for landscape quite often. It offers the angles of view which make the scene look natural and it is usually possible to get (almost) everything in the frame within the depth of field (near to far compositions with very close foreground sometimes are an exception). I do a lot of winter landscape photography and at -15 C to -30 C I have a limited time during which I'm able to function properly before I get too cold. Thus I don't want to waste time with lens changes and still I want the best image quality I can get, so I use a tripod and the standard zoom. I prefer the image quality of the 24-70 (old or new) to other Nikon wide to tele zooms and it can take the cold without problems. I used the 24-70/2.8G for many years but now use the E VR version, which offers in my opinion greater contrast and clarity in images and at 24mm it doesn't have the field curvature problem which both the 24-70/2.8G and 17-55G have at their widest settings (however, it has more vignetting and I suspect it has more distortion too). I like the new lens a lot and it reminds me of the 14-24 in terms of how the wide angle images feel. I even use the VR for urban night scenes and find the results very good. In the past I would not have been caught using VR instead of a tripod for any static subjects, but this lens has corrupted me. Of course a tripod should be used for best results where possible.</p>

<p>Thanks to the new lens coming on the market, the 24-70/2.8G can be had for great prices both as remaining new stock as well as second hand. If buying second hand, inspect the lens carefully before purchasing. However, I can't tell if this is the lens you should buy. ;-) It is dependent on individual style, budget and how much weight you are willing to carry, among other things. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would ask myself what sort of landscape photos I would like to take and then decide which type of lens or lenses would best help me accomplish that.</p>

<p>You may find that your preferences change quite a bit over time. My go-to lens used to be the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, which languished on my shelf after switching from film to the "cropped" D300 until I added the D610. More recently I've been using the Nikon 16mm f/2.8, which is certainly not for everyones taste, but can greatly emphasize near objects compared to distant features. At the other end of the spectrum I've used the 80-210 f/2.8, for example, with cropped mountainscapes.</p>

<p>So again, think about what landscapes you like most.</p>

<p> </p>

Test
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What I look for in a landscape lens are 1) evenness of field--sharpness form edge to edge and as close to zero light fall off-- and 2) as close to zero distortion.<br>

<br /> Outside of PC-E lenses and very expensive lenses, I personally prefer the Sigma 35mm/1.4 and Sigma 50mm1/4 ART lenses. In fact I generally prefer the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths for landscape images (as well as other types of images). I use wide angle lenses for near-far perspectives. Here's one from the Sigma 35mm/1.4 ART:<br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s9/v16/p1503321489-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 24-70 is a great all-around lens. I use it for both landscape and events. As Shun implied above, it is just heavier than some other lenses which are also good for landscape. It is especially good for events because it opens up to f/2.8 (for low light, shallow depth of field), and focus action is fast as you follow the fluid event. For landscape photography, one normally would not need f/2.8. Most situations benefit from using a tripod with a much higher F-stop at slow shutter speed.</p>

<p>Any decent lens can be good for landscape depending on the needed focal range. In Keith's example above, he used a 35mm lens to capture beautiful Mount Fuji. My most used lenses for landscape went in this order: 24-70, 70-200, 10-24, 200-400, and fisheye. Now the 80-400 replaces the range previously covered by the 70-200 and 200-400.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your responses. In my effort to be brief, I neglected to say I was looking for a zoom lens since I prefer to take

only one lens with me when hiking. My favorite lens while hiking with an APS camera was my 16-85 for landscape shots. While not a

perfect lens, I felt it gave me good enough results to make larger prints that I was happy with. Keith, I already have the Sigma 35 f1.8; it

sometimes leaves me speechless when I see the results, and I see how nice your example is. It is my favorite lens. But I prefer to not be

changing lenses because of the extra weight from carrying multiple lenses as well as the possibility of getting dust on the sensor ('seems

where I hike it's always so dusty). Perhaps it has spoiled me. The 17-55 for distances is not as sharp as some of my other lenses. For

closer scenes or people, I was thrilled with it.

 

 

I have pretty much ruled out the 24-70 VR because of its weight. Because I always use a tripod while hiking, so I cannot justify the

added expense and weight of the VR version. I was leaning towards the Nikon 24-70 because of its edge to edge sharpness over the

Tamron. That said, I do plan on comparing it to the Nikon and seeing if the lighter weight is better for me.

 

 

Ilkka, where have you seen "great prices" for a new Nikon 24-70 without VR on remaining new stock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>My favorite lens while hiking with an APS camera was my 16-85 for landscape shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Diane, I wonder why you dislike the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S? While I wouldn't say it is excellent, it is quite good overall.</p>

<p>I have the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR. I think that is quite good as well, although a bit weak @ 24mm. You can see some chromatic aberration and general softness towards the right and left edges as well as the corners.</p>

<p>One possibility is to add the 18-35mm to your existing 24-85 so that you have the 18-35mm to cover the weaker, wide end of the 24-85. Both of those are fairly light lenses and perhaps beats carrying one heavy 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

<p>BTW, both the 24-120 and 18-35 use 77mm filters. I use that combination and they can share e.g. polarizers and ND filters.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For landscape photography, I never really get the point of a f/2.8 lens, given that you'll be at f/8 or beyond very often, where all lenses are extremely close in performance. So the f/2.8 lenses at that point loose their advantages, and keep the disadvantages: cost, weight, size. For me, better a slow zoom, and a small simple prime for the few shots that need wide apertures.<br>

The 24-85VR should actually be pretty sweet for this kind of work. I've got the 24-120 F/4VR too, and for landscapes it's good (but not as good as the 16-85VR was on my D300); the extra money for a 24-120 f/4VR, though, I'm not too sure about its value for money, really. If I'd be shopping now, most likely I'd go for the 24-85VR instead for weight and size advantages.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I prefer to not be changing lenses because of the extra weight from carrying multiple lenses as well as the possibility of getting dust on the sensor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Note that dust also comes in via zooming action of zoomlenses - I've seen very dusty sensors with people who only have 1 lens. Dust doesn't only come in while changing lenses (and in fact, I managed to stay dust free while shooting primes only, and changing lenses wherever - a bit of precaution while changing goes an awful long way). If you dislike the extra weight - none of the f/2.8 lenses should not really be on your shortlist. The 24-120 f/4VR (which I do not see as light nor small!) is sunbstantially lighter than the non-VR 24-70 f/2.8 already.</p>

<p>So, seriously, what do you feel is wrong with a 24-85VR on a tripod, at f/8 with VR off? It should have zero issues at that point being completely adequate for your camera, and I really doubt getting a more expensive lens is going to bring you massive steps forward.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"My favorite lens while hiking with an APS camera was my 16-85 for landscape shots."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>About the closest you're going to come to that in an FX lens would be Sigma's 24-105mm f/4, or Nikon's latest pricey version of 24-120 f/4 VR.<br>

The Sigma doesn't get rave reviews, but it appears to deliver a more than acceptable level of performance when stopped down a little.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter said: for landscapes it's good (but not as good as the 16-85VR was on my D300).</p>

<p>My point exactly. Going from an APS camera with 16-85 lens to full frame and 24-85 lens gives me slightly less quality (sharpness wise). I had thought that the 24-70 non VR would be better until Shun said it's not that great for distance. And that is why I am considering a different lens than the 24-85. I prefer to use equipment that will give me the best results when printing large. And I agree that while I don't necessarily need f2.8, that's how the 24-70 is sold.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Diane, do note that 1. I was comparing to the 24-120, not the 24-85, and 2. each camera does require slightly different sharpening. While the 24-120 isn't quite as good as the 16-85VR for landscapes, so far none of my large prints suffered from it - the differences are mainly visible under large magnifications on-screen, but in print they're nowhere near as noticeable.<br>

In all other respects, I should add, the 24-120 f/4VR to me is a perfectly satisfying lens for my needs. If I really want the best results, I revert to primes anyway. Given you already have an excellent 35mm lens, why not simply add the 24mm f/1.8 (first reviews look excellent) and the 85mm f/1.8G, or 50mm f/1.8G - would make a pretty stellar kit, at lens money.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here are reviews of the 24-85 VR, 24-120 VR and 24-70 - they all show images taken at infinity (in addition to to test images of the Siemens star taken at 40x focal length). Full size images are linked to on flickr - they are all taken with a D800<br>

24-85: <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-85mm_f3-5-4-5G_ED_VR/">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-85mm_f3-5-4-5G_ED_VR/</a><br>

24-120: <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-120mm_f4G_ED_VR/">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-120mm_f4G_ED_VR/</a><br>

24-70: <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-70mm_f2-8G_ED/">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-70mm_f2-8G_ED/</a><br>

and here is a comparison of the latter with the Tamron VC: <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/</a> (with the 24-85 VR thrown in too). "Spoiler" alert: except toward the long end, the Nikon 24-70 takes the clear lead.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I reviewed the D600 for photo.net, I specifically mounted the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E on it to verify that the combination works: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon/d600-first-impressions-review</p>

<p>For those who are interested in the 24-70mm/f2.8, Roger Cicala from Lens Rental has an interesting review: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-ed-af-s-vr-sharpness-optical-bench-testing</p>

<p>Cicala observes that the new VR version is better at 70mm. At 24mm and 50mm, the old, non-VR version is better in the center; however, the new VR version has better edge-to-edge sharpness while compromising some center performance. To me, that is a somewhat strange design choice for an indoor event lens where edge performance is usually not important.</p>

<p>Since Roger Cicala runs a camera rental business, he has the unusual advantage of having many samples (e.g. 10 or more) of the same lens model to check. Most of us outside of Nikon usually only have access to one sample or occasionally maybe two if we are lucky. Of course Cicala's business objective is to make money by getting people to rent camera equipment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sharp landscapes on my d810 and d800e, I try and use a prime lens, even ones made 50 years ago that are manual

focus. I have the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8, but often use a smaller lighter lens. I use a cable release and mirror lock up to

reduce any vibrations for my camera lens mounted on a tripod or bean bag. One of my favorite landscape lenses is the

manual focus Nikon 55mm f2.8. When traveling, I usually take my 24-85mm zoom.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><< I prefer to use equipment that will give me the best results when printing large. >></p>

<p>For that you are way ahead using a tripod, as you mentioned. The difference is huge. I often sell large prints to customers, and while none of them can tell the difference between a print made from a D7100 vs. D800E, the difference between shots made with/without a tripod really jump at you. I have gone to all single focal length lenses except when doing wedding work, and I agree it's a pain in the butt when hiking. I generally end up taking a smaller camera for that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would consider supplementing your 24-85 with the 14-24. Big and heavy though. If I still had a Nikon body I'd be using it and the 24 PC-E. I currently use a Nikon 35mm f2.8 PC lens that delivers on image quality, but it is very difficult to use.</p>

<p>P.S. I would also suggest looking at the Sigma 12-24.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say 24-70 has been my most commonly used landscape lens. If I didn't really take a particular LS completely

seriously, I might use 24-120 for convenience. But if I want low flare, better color rendition, I use the 24-70.

 

Off the top of my head, the ratio of LS I took with different lenses are:

 

24-70 : 24-120 : 70-200 : 14-24 : 200-500

 

30 : 10 : 5 : 2 : 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If landscape is your main interest, wouldn't one of the D800 series cameras be more appropriate? I'm not knocking the D610, just pointing out that with good technique 36mp does have quite an advantage over 24mp, even before you've chosen which lens to put onto your camera.<br>

However, if you just take landscape images occasionally then something like the newer Nikon 18-35mm lens with the D610 would be a very good lightweight option, which would still produce first class results and you could easily add a Nikon 50mm f1.8g to it and still be far less expensive than either of the Nikon 24-70mm lenses. That would be my choice but then I tend to like the wider angled end of landscape photography.</p>

<p>By preference I would use prime lenses but that isn't always possible, I bought the Nikon 16-35mm f4 lens earlier this year and use it mainly at 16mm and am amazed at how good the images that I get from it using my D800 are. If 24 to 70mm is the main range you tend to use, I'd suggest as another option the new Nikon 24mm lens with either the 28mm or 35mm f1.8g lenses and the Nikon 50mm f1.8g, used carefully with mirror lockup and on a tripod, prime lenses like that will easily match and even beat the image quality of either Nikon 24-70mm lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

<p>The f/1.8 prime lenses that Nikon has been producing for the last couple of years are small, lightweight, and extremely sharp.</p>

<p>24mm, 35mm, and 85mm would make a nice, easy to carry kit, although other focal lengths are available.</p>

<p>I use the 24-70 f/2.8 (2007 version) and 70-200 f/2.8 VR II for landscapes, but they are HEAVY and EXPENSIVE, and the 24-70 isn't as sharp as prime lenses (but it is sharper than other mid-range zooms). I picked up the 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 recently, and I have been very impressed with both of them.</p>

<p>I would stay away from PC-E lenses unless you absolutely need (and understand) what they can do for you. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...