Is Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G wide enough for landscapes?

I'm thinking of dropping the money for the "Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX" straight off the bat

instead of buying wide primes, but i'm not sure that the 17mm is wide enough for landscapes. Any

suggestions or other options that I should consider?

If the primary objective is to shoot landscape, I think the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX is a better lens and cheaper too. On the DX sensor, IMO 17mm is not wide enough.

 

Additionally, the 17-55 is at its sharpest focusing to 10 to 20 feet or so; it is not as sharp at infinity. See Bjorn Rorslett's review:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-55G

 

I have both lenses. After reading Rorslett's reivew, I checked mine and confirmed that it is not as good at infinity. As an event, wedding lens, it is wonderful.

This all depends on the landscape and your particular vision and creativity. I've shot

landscapes with focal lengths from 12 mm to 700 mm (on 1.3 and 1.6 X DSLRs). But I agree

with Shun that quite often a 12 mm on DX format would be nice to have. I would want that

field of view to be available, anyway.

A 17mm lens on a Nikon DX camera is the equivalent of a 24.5mm lens on a 35mm camera, which is pretty wide. That said, appropos of Shun and Mark's comments, if you're inclined to shoot nature with wide to superwide lenses, the 12-24mm DX lens would be a better choice.

Depends on the landscape you're shooting and the effect you need with things in the foreground, etc. A 24mm equivalent might be wide enough or it might not. 24 used to be the widest I had and I got by. I couldn't afford the Nikon 12-24 but I do have the Tokina version and find it very helpful to have the 18mm equivalent, not just for landscapes but for shooting in tight quarters. And there's a huge difference between 18 and 24.

I think that is a question that will be hard to answer using other people's opinions. Some people feel that landscape photography is primarily a wide-angle thing, some find that telephotos provide results they like better, and most probably fall somewhere between.

 

Personally, I'd guess that the lens is probably wide enough for 90% of the wider-angle landscape photography that you will do. You might have a few times where you'll wish for something a little wider, but probably not very often.

I don't think you will need the speed of this lens. I use the 18-70 and if I needed to go wider I would get one of the 1x-2x wide zooms. I have some fast primes when I need the speed. Get a used 18-70 and if needed the Tokina or Sigma for much less outlay in $$$$. Of course the Nikkor 12-24mm looks very nice also.

As the others have pointed out, it depends upon one's vision. I guess I'm in the minority, but for my own landscape work, the wide end of the 17-55 tends to be plenty wide. I own it and find it to be a great landscape lens. But then when shooting film, 24mm was my "go to" lens for years - I really like the (35mm equivalent of) the 24mm optic and virtually never used a wider lens at that time, either.

 

I should mention that I have the Tokina 12-24 as well, and while I really like that lens, I seldom reach for it for landscape shooting.

 

As far as sharpness goes, I am on my second sample of the lens. As Shun pointed out, some have assessed the 17-55 as less sharp than various alternatives at infinity. That was definitely the case with my first sample of the lens - awesome at close range and a stunning event/wedding lens, but dissappointing at 17mm at infinity at f8-11. However, this is not the case with my current copy of the lens - it's sharp and contrasty at infinity, producing lovely landscape images.

 

All the above having been said, and coming back to the "all depends upon one's vision" point, my most-used landscape lens - by far - is my 70-200...

 

Good luck!

"Personally, I'd guess that the lens is probably wide enough for 90% of the wider-angle landscape photography that you will do."

 

Joshua, I actually took a look at focal length for my landscape shots and found most of my scenics are in the 12-18mm range. By scenics, I mean shots like Grand Canyon, Canadian Rockies, etc. Also, this is my go-to lens when space is tight.

 

OTOH, most of my 'in-town' type landscape shots are in the 18-50mm range. This includes things like walks in the woods, creeks and parks, etc. In other words, this is my go-to lens when I don't need a very wide field of view.

 

Bottom line, each person has to define for themselves what 'landscape' means to them. If you want the wide vistas, the 12-24mm is the way to go. If you prefer tighter shots or don't mind stitching photos in PS (and correct the edge distortion beforehand), stick with the longer zoom. Both are good lenses.

Bruce Margolis,

 

"Joshua, I actually took a look at focal length for my landscape shots and found most of my scenics are in the 12-18mm range. By scenics, I mean shots like Grand Canyon, Canadian Rockies, etc. Also, this is my go-to lens when space is tight..."

 

Hence the opinion modifier in the front of the sentence. ;) Your statement re-inforces what I said, however, because most of the landscape shooting the people I know do REGULARLY is the stuff you use your 18-50 range for the most.

 

I switch hit between my dSLR (1.6x crop) and my film camera using the same lenses when I need a wider perspective than I have on my dSLR, rather than buying a dedicated wide-angle for my dSLR.

 

Robert and Traci Putt,

What lens do you use the most right now? Does it give satisfactory results?

I think the 12-24 is the better choice for landscape photography... especially when objects

are very close. Then you can getmuch better deep in the pixs.... they look more 3-

dimensional like the 17-55.

 

I have the 17-55 and I use the lens mostly for street photography.... when I would chose a

lens for landscape p..... I would take the 12-24 and a tele like the 70-200.

Most of my photos are taken while hiking. I like to include the foreground and have teh side

angle. Then when I hit the top of the mountain/hill I want something that captures the vast

open space and horizon. I have never shot landscapes with a 70-200mm when does that

work well. Examples? Thanks a bunch for all the help.

<I> I have never shot landscapes with a 70-200mm when does that work well.</i><P>

 

Whenever you see something that 'fits' a somewhat narrow field of view.<P>

 

<I> Examples?</i><P>

 

70-200 or longer:<P>

 

<center>

365 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/Alaskascenes/Denali4.jpg"><P>

 

500 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/CentralCalifornia/cypresssunset6.jpg">

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/CoachellaValley/sunsethills1.jpg"><P>

 

 

1000 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/easternSierra/mono2.jpg"><P>

 

 

320 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/Bosque/eaglecranes.jpg"><P>

 

100 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/Yosemite/HalfDomesunset10.jpg"><P>

 

 

135 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/Yosemite/ElCap2.jpg"><P>

 

 

105 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/CoachellaValley/deserthills11.jpg"><P>

 

310 mm:<br>

<img src="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/easternSierra/Sierradawn1.jpg"><P>

 

</center>

Those are great shots, I see your point. From what it sounds like I might look into the 12-24mm range for the landscpae I like to shoot. How important is it to get the f-stop down to f2.8? If I were to end up using a an f3.5 or f4.0 would I really need the VR lenses if I were working off a tripod? Or would I have to get down to 2.8 to be able to do without the VR lenses?

In most cases, landscape doesn't move, at least not much. Therefore, shoot at f8 or f11 for better results and more depth of field. An f2.8 lens is, for the most part, unnecessary for landscape. There are some exceptions such as trees moving in the wind, tide/waves, etc.

I would use a tripod 99% of the time for landscape and VR should be uncessary.

 

Even though 17mm may be sufficient most of the time, I would get the 12-24 for a wider coverage so that you have room to get wider. In particular, a lot of people gradually develop an interest in super wide landscape.

The short answer is that of course 17mm. is wide enough for landscapes. The classic landscape lens for 35mm. photography is the 35mm. slight wide-angle, which is the equivalent of around 24mm. with a DX lens.

 

The real question here is, as the other posters have indicated, how you approach landscape photography yourself. In my own experience, using a very wide angle lens, anything wider than say, 19mm. (DX), tends to appear to push away what you are photographing, making it appear further away and less immediate. This is not usually the effect I wish to obtain in my photos, even those depicting those wide open spaces. Like some of the other people above (e.g., Mark), I actually tend to use telephoto focal lengths, DX 50-135 or so, for many of my landscape photos. This tends to compress the landscape to varying degrees, an effect that I happen to enjoy.

 

Very wide angle photos work best (IMHO) when the goal is to place something located in the foreground "in context." This can be a flower, a tree, a rock, whatever. The item that is close to the camera will appear prominently, with the pushed-away background providing that context. WA's are also useful, as has been pointed out, to "open up space" when one is shooting in tight quarters.

 

And I also agree with Shun that you don't need a wide aperture to shoot landscapes unless the light is very low and/or you don't have a tripod or beanbag. You pay big bucks for that extra f-stop, so consider carefully whether that's a feature you really need.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/composition-3.shtml

<i>I have never shot landscapes with a 70-200mm when does that work well.</i>

 

I highly recommend John Shaw's Nature Photography book for some good reasons why you might want a lens in the 70-200mm lens for landscape photography. BUT, in your response we finally get to what YOU need and want.

 

<i>Most of my photos are taken while hiking. I like to include the foreground and have teh side angle. Then when I hit the top of the mountain/hill I want something that captures the vast open space and horizon.</i>

 

This suggests to me that you want a REALLY wide lens, not just a lens for lanscape photography. Any lens can do landscapes, from 12 to 1200mm, but not any lens can capture a landscape the way you want to capture it. Based on what I now know, I'd say that 17mm will be just barely wide enough for YOU, and you may want something wider.

 

Just keep in mind that a well-rounded lens kit will prevent you from being the guy who always shoots with the same lens, always getting the same perpective. I have a friend who bought a fisheye, and I'm terrified that he will become the "fisheye guy" and constantly subject me to fisheye shots. The lens fits the purpose, not the other way around!

My go to lenses for 90% of my landscapes are Nikon's 12-24mm and 24-70mm. Incredible quality along with my

D300 ... Ray.