High quality lanscape lens lineup? DX & FX

Hey all. I've been using mostly my 18-200 an 10-20 sigma for everything landscape, but lately i've been taking things

a bit more seriously printing-wise and have started noticing the flaws in this lens. particularly, a bit of corner

softness, and unacceptable amounts of cyan/magenta fringing in those high contrast areas of the picture (tree

branches against a sky etc.)

 

so lately, although more daunting, i've been taking my 10-20, 18-35, 50 1.8 and 80-200 (1st gen.) and have been

enjoying the higher quality results.

 

I'm looking for opinions of how this lens set might perform on (an eventual transfer to) FX. it will be nice that the 18-35

will replace my 10-20 so i can sell that lens off. of course I might be inclined to buy a 300mm then

 

I'm looking for general opinions of whether moving to FX would be the right move as well. Currently I'm using a D50.

and am really contemplating moving up to a D200 for my landscape stuff. Even though I have the lenses I find that I

DON'T take too many ultra-wide shots anyways. 18mm is usually enough for me on DX. the 10-20 is rarely needed.

 

So I'd like to know how these lenses work on FX, particularly in the corners concerning colour fringing. If I'm not a big

ultra wide fan, is perhaps the DX format better because these corner issues won't be present? or will these lenses (or

others) be fine performers on the FX format aswell across the entire sensor?

 

Would anyone have any alternative lens reccomendations. I am completely open to MF lens suggestions. I am

however aware of SOME older lens' ghosting, flare, and contrast issues. I'm looking for good quality at a reasonable

price, not fair quality at an exceptional bargain!

 

Perhaps some comments on the 80-200 compared to some other lenses in that range? in the application of

landscape of course. I have heard good things of the 75-150 and i love the size and weight, but when you put a 200/4

with it the size/weight scale doesn't really tip in favor of the two lenses over the 80-200 very much. How do they

compare IQ wise? How about primes in that range?

*Landscape* although comments on local area network setups are welcome aswell ;)

The reason why there are so many lenses out there is because there are so many different people with so many different

opinions. In order to find one that suits you exactly is a process in itself. If I give you a hard and fast answer to get a Carl

Zeiss 21 mm or a Nikon 14 to 24 mm G for your landscape work you will be missing 90 percent of the fun.

 

It is the journey and not the destination of the travel that is interesting.

 

Go forth and try them all yourself. You will be glad you did.

um, first of all, d200 isn't much of an upgrade from d50 for what you do. 5fps doesnt help you at all for landscape,

unless you are shooting the fast-moving Speed Ents of Rohan during their once-a-millenium jaunt through Middle-

Earth. you will get 4 extra mp for crop room, but you would also get those same mp with a d60 or d80. the body is

built better, but you wont see any improvement in noise, though the ergonomics and number of dedicated buttons is

a plus, i suppose.

 

IMO for you to seriously upgrade as a landscape shooter, you're looking at a) better lenses; b) the d700; or c) both.

and honestly, until you make the FX jump, you wont know whether your 18-35 will be adequate for your shooting

style. ditto with the 80-200.

 

if you do eventually gravitate toward a d700, the obvious choices would be the 35-70 or the 24-70, though if you don't

need constant 2.8, a 24-85 might work almost as well stopped down.

A D200 is a wasted turn. Go to D300 or better yet a D700.

 

Then evaluate the 18/35. The new 14/24 and 24/70 zooms are pretty great lenses. Start with the 24/70 of decide if you want primes. I have a couple Ai and Ai`ed 24mm 2.8 and an AF 24 All are great lenses. New 50 1.4 is due in Dec. I predict it to be a winner. The 105 2.8 VR is a known winner. You can always use some older Ai lenses as AF is not necessary for landscape.

 

Color fringe can be removed in ACR converter. Also NX2.

If you are up for a challenge and would like to see superb results on a bargain basement budget then try a Kodak SLR/n full frame body which has a Nikon mount. They are even available at keh.com for around $500 USD. Be sure to get an extra battery and make sure it comes with a charger. Then add some AIS lenses. The camera will not meter with them, but only the D200 and above will anyway, but you do get focus confirmation. It is an antique and ergonomics are awful but it's 14 MP delivers similar quality/or better than the D2x/D300 at low ISO except you get the advantage of full frame. I have not shot a D700 or D3 but I bet the SLR/n is as good or beats these as it's lowest ISO 160. Shooting with mine handheld or on a tripod reminds me of shooting medium format in that it slows you right down and makes you think about what you are doing. This camera is not for the faint of heart but it will deliver the goods at low ISOs that most landscape photographers use.

 

 

Some excellent lenses to add, again at a bargain, are the 20/2.8 AIS, 28/2 AIS, 50/1.4 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS, 180/2.8 ED AIS.

 

 

I suspect you could have all of the above lenses, or similar to fit your needs, and the SLR/n for less than the price of the D300.

Do not go for the D300, until you read the post how D90 is better than D300:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RcLj?unified_p=1

If you use wider (lower numerically) mm then you can find the same FOV acceptance angle and both formats are the same coverage. Both DX and FX have the same 2:3 ratio. I think stitching 2 or 3 pictures and getting a pano ratio of 2:1 to 3:1 wide pano look makes landscape for me more interesting. Standard 2:3 shows too much sky and for me is not as spacious. Of course you could crop the top and bottom of the frame to achieve the desired ratio but that is tiresome. Stitching also gives you more megapixels in the stitched image so you can print bigger. The downside is it takes some extra hardware and there are many ways to skin that cat. The software is available on the cheap.

Yes, a more traditional upgrade for you at a very good price is the D90. Still DX format but if you use AI or AIS lenses it will not meter with them.

Peter,

 

no one has talked with you in regards to budget. So - - what is your budget? That should be question # 1 - - also, always spend your money on lenses.

 

And just so that you know..... I would not ever spend the $ 1200 + on the D90 over the D300

 

JMHO

 

Lil :-)

In addition to budget, I wonder whether Peter K. has a portfolio somewhere. It would be much easier to provide appropriate advices if we have an idea about how advance he is as a landscape photographer.

If you don't like to shoot wide - there doesn't seem to be any reason to worry about FX. I use the 12-24 a lot, and really like it, It is sharp, and not hugely expensive. I, also, just got a 24-70 f2.8. I can't express how much I love this lens. I just put up a few shots from a recent trip to CA - most of them were shot with the 24-70. I was really surprised at the lack of flare shooting into the sun. Oh, and camera was a D300. The 24-70 was an incredible improvement over the 24-120. I don't think the 80-200 is a problem. The new one gets you VR, but if landscapes are your thing then a tripod is a major part of your gear. :)

Most people have used focal lengths on film cameras of 24-35mm for landscape photography. That translates to a 17-24mm lens on a APS camera. The Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 will be excellent for landscape work with either a DX or a FX camera so your lens investment is protected. It also accepts screw on 77mm filters or adapters for using split ND filters if you choose.

 

As to its quality I suggest referring to this website:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

"I'm looking for good quality at a reasonable price, not fair quality at an exceptional bargain! "

 

Did you say landscape? You did not mention convenience. Then get a used cheap 4x5 and shoot negative film :-) Also there are nice cheap Hasselblad 6x6cm or old used 6x9cm cameras (Linhof used to make a nice 6x9 viewcamera that is hard to find but great for landscapes ) that do better than a Nikon DSLR. What is your tripod and head?

I wanted to buy a D700 but I was worried about old Ai/Ais lenses corner performance that is quite important for

landscape photography. Than I bought it and tested all my lenses. These are my findings (f number nedeed to obtain

excellent IQ) about extreme corner performance.

 

28mm f/2 Ais f/8 - 35mm f/2 Ais f/8 - 50mm f/1.8 Ais f/5.6 - 85mm f/2 Ais f/4 - 105mm f/2.5 Ais f/8 - 135mm f/2.8

Ais f/5.6 - 180mm f/2.8 Ais f/4 - 200mm f/4 Ais f/8 - 50-135mm f/3.5 Ais f/5.6.

 

All of them perform very well with D700, maybe they could show their age with the +20MP of next generation FX

camera.

If you use moderate wide angle lens that has low perspective distortion and even edge to edge light gathering (no vignetting) you can get better images stitching 2 or 3 images together than using an ultrawide that has more distortion and vignetting to do the same thing. And you will wind up with more pixels and a wider aspect ratio panographic image. The film suggestion for 6x9 is good 6x12 is better. Digital and stitching is cheaper.

Thank you all very much! budget wise, I don't have "lots" of money, but I'll spend what's needed. I'm not gonna buy anything today this is a "over the next 2 years budget" anyways, as I build my collection. I won't be buying a D700 this year anways as $3000 IS lots of money!

 

I am considering the move to the D200 for 1) MLU which I find myself desiring more and more these days, 2) the meter, 3) the lcd, histogram, and buttons, 4) the fps (I enjoy photography other than landscape occasionally) and lastly, the 10mp. I am considering the D80 perhaps though, while I hold off for a more affordable camera that I REALLY want (D300,D700)

 

I started this thread because I want to get a feel for how people are liking their move to FX for landscape. so apparently the 24-70 is REALLY good? I'm sure it's excellent for event stuff. but at f8-f16 is it any better than older, slower lenses, in terms of sharpness, CA and fringing? If it is I'd like to know. I mean it's a fairly common statement to hear that nearly ALL lenses at f11 are equally sharp, but I never hear very much being spoken regarding CA and colour fringing, particularly in reference to FX coverage.

 

as far as film walter, I know it's probably the way to go. but to be honest it's too much hassle for me. and I have indeed being shooting stiched panoramas if I want to go wide sometimes, but that only works if all your subjects are a fairly equal distance away, and I still don't like the fact that I can't really know what my composition is until I stitch it, and I always have to worry that maybe I goofed up a frame and didn't get enough info for the stitching program to work properly.

 

I am also fairly interested in the 24mm PCE lens if I move to FX. Anyone using this care to comment on it's corner performance?

 

And shun I don't have a "portfolio" persay, but here's my flickr page with a few of my favourites of the last year

 

everything was taken with my D40 and 18-200 I believe, the panoramas are stitches of anywhere from 3 to 50 images.

Peter you are thinking along the right line with the PCE but I have something that might be better.

 

The Nikkor 24 pce is more expensive than this setup. A Zoerk psa and a Pentax 645 35mm (21mm equivalent on 35mm) in the Nikkor mount. Take a look.

 

http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_psa.htm

 

You mount the camera to the PSA and the adapter to a tripod and then you have tilt and shifts.

 

You shift the lens to one side 20mm, take first shot, then shift to the opposite side 20mm and take second shot.

You can also take a third shot in the center zero shift position to make stitching easier. The advantage is you have a 3:1 panographic image with a lot more pixels for large image printing.

Harvey I can believe that. A good suggestion. The Mamiya 35mm lens (seen in the link) is a gem. I kept 2 645 bodies just for this lens. Unfortunately the lens lubricant got stiff. The lens is difficult to clean due to its floating optical element and CLA was financial death for it. I sold the lens to someone who had access to good service at low cost.

 

Unfortunately excellent wide angle lenses for larger formats are expensive since the word spread and use of very wide lenses is a domain where film still shines. Not that there would be a lack of superb sensors but these come at a dear price.

Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF-D....none better than this prime lens

Walter I suggested the Pentax of the same length, its supposed to be like a Biogon in many ways. No distortion and as high resolution as a 35mm lens. The FA version was rated higher than first version the optics are a little better.

 

On the adapter it leaves a lot of room for the shift to roam since the format is so much wider image circle than a 35mm lens. The Pentacon 6 lens made by Zeiss Jena were great too but the Pentax is newer and probably better for this purpose. 35mm lenses usually this wide have more than a stop vignetting and barrel distortion. The big 645 or 67 lenses you are operating in the center sweet spot not the edge so you have higher resolution with less distortion and light falloff. Other than this really you need a dedicated pano camera with either a swing lens or medium format lens and a 35mm pano adapter like they have for the Pentax 67 or Mamiya m7. Unless you go Xpan which is really a medium format lens with a 35mm film frame and medium format shutter.

 

This may be the best answer so far because your all digital for the 3 shots, blending in stitching is easy enough. Now if someone will only come up with more dynamic range in digital so landscape range of EV will be captured without losing detail all would be perfect.

I think the D200 is great for landscape. It has a lower ISO which means it easier to show motion. I imagine you have a good tripod and stop down a good bit currently. It will meter manual lenses. If you want a zoom to cover the middle ranges than maybe the 16-85 would do. If you want an older Nikkor manual focus zoom I suggest it be constant aperture for metering setup. If you want FX than I would look at older Nikkor primes for quality and value or the 17-35 and 24-70 zooms if price is not an issue.

I also recommend you research Bjorn's site:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html