Any recomendations for Nikon Wide-angle lens for Landscape

[richard_coke]

Hi all,

I am wanting to purchase a Nikon wide angle lens to use for lanscape photography (eg; Coastal , Mountains, Deserts

and the African bush, with and without subjects in the foreground. We get fantastic cloud formations which make for

good sunsets) . I have mostly taken wildlife images using large lenses. so my knowlegde and experience of what

wide-angle lenses to use for lanscapes and which lenses would work best with the camera bodies I use is limited. I

currently have a D300 and I am looking to purchase a D3. The lenses I have been looking at are the 17-35 f/2.8, 14-

24 f/2.8 and the 12-24 f/4. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Regards,

Richard

[ronald_moravec1]

My 12/24 is a terrific lens, but it is DX format and will not cover full 24x36 sensor on a D3. 14/24 is the lens for wide work on the D3 if you do not get prime lenses.

 

A 17 is about 60% wider than a standard lens and may or may not meet your needs. I don`t know what you have now, but 30/35 is considered normal.

[ShunCheung]

For your D300, the best choice is the 12-24mm/f4 DX. For the D3, I would get the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S.

I recently went on a trip to photograph the New England foliage and I continue to find the 14-24mm/f2.8 very unsuitable for landscape work on the FX sensor. 14mm is simply way too wide and in most situations you just won't have so much foreground to make a good composition. Additionally, you cannot use any polarizer or graduated neutral-density filter on the 14-24.

<P>

If you are quite sure that you'll get the D3 (or D700) soon, you might want to op for the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, but it will probably be not quite wide enough for the D300.

<P>

In case you haven't seen one, this is how the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S looks like:

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00Qrry-71259584.jpg">

</CENTER>

[famico]

Agree with Shun - 12-24 for the D300 and 17-35 for the D3 would work well for your stated purpose.

[landon wright photography]

I have the 14-24 2.8 piece of glass on my D700. I have had it for a week now and have yet to get a feel for it. The 14mm side

does seem a bit wide. I did see a bit of edge softness on shots of my kids at night shooting at 2.8.<div></div>

[landon wright photography]

<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

I have been evaluating the 14-24mm/f2.8 as part of photo.net's D700 review. That was why I took it to New England anyway even though I was quite sure that it was the wrong lens for the trip, but I had the 17-35mm/f2.8 with me also.

 

For building interior shots such as this one:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7919556

 

the 14-24 is great and it is sharp from edge to edge at 14mm, but I don't use it at f2.8. It is certainly wonderful at f8, f11, etc. In that case in the range they overlap like around 17 to 20mm, I think the 14-24 is a better super wide than the 17-35, which is a little softer.

[hudspeth]

On FX I like the 35mm 1.4 MF and the 20mm 3.5 MF. The coatings are better in my opinion and filters are easy to get and the resolution is fantastic.

[Hector Javkin]

Read this: http://www.bythom.com/hireztoday.htm, and consider the Nikon 24mm f/3.5 Perspective Control-E . I have not tried this lens, but it will deal with subjects in the very near foreground far better than the lenses you mentioned.

[shuo_zhao]

Richard, here are a few question for you to answer that might help you decide which lens to get:

 

What FL would you prefer to use when shooting wide angle? (that can literally go from 14mm to 25/26mm, depending on your subject and style)

 

Do you prefer a prime(s) or a zoom?

 

Do you need a fast (large aperture) wide angle lens? or something slower (f/4 or f/3.5-4.5 or even f/3.5-5.6)? or something very fast (such as the now discontinued 28 f/1.4)?

 

Which camera would you primarily use the lens on? (D300 or D3, or both)

 

You see the three lenses you mentioned work quite differently on FX and DX formats. The 14-24 f/2.8 is a excellent extreme-wide to wide on FX, and slightly-ultra-wide to slight/almost normal-wide on DX. The 17-35 f/2.8 is a more typical ultra-wide zoom on FX, and a short normal zoom on DX. The 12-24 f/4 is a typical ultra-wide on DX, and it's only usable between 18mm and 24mm on FX. (which doesn't categorize it as meaningfully anything)

[james_symington1]

Forget the 14-24mm irrespective of your choice of FX or DX - for landscape use it is too limiting without the ability to use filters. As Shun said if you know you're getting an FX camera soon the 17-35mm is the lens to get - if it's a while off the 12-24mm. Someone mentioned the 24mm PCE - that would be great to have as well (it's my next purchase) but I would personally start with one of those two zooms.

[tri-x1]

For DX I think my Tokina 12-24 f4 is pretty close to the Nikkor 12-24 f4 in build and sharpness but doesn't cost nearly as much. If you get the D3 you have a lot more options since there are a lot more FX lenses out there.

[richard_coke]

Wow! That is alot to think about. What do you mean by prime lenses? I have been using the 17-55f2.8DX, I just feel I

could go a little wider.I also feel that the quality is not there. Then again I might have not been using the right

apeture. Do alot of landscape photographers use filters? I only have experience with a Polarizer and still I do not

really like to use it. When I am in the bush I will probably be using the D300 with the 70-200 and a Wide angle. The

D3 will be my primary body with the 200 - 400, and will be using it the most. When in the Mountains, on the Coast or

any where where I will not be needing to get up close to a subject and will be doing more landscape, I would like to

use the D3 with the Wide angle. I also feel that if I spend that kind of money on a D3 then I must utilize the quality

as much as possible. If this is the case then I feel that I should go for the 17-35. Do you guys use the wide angle

lens on differnet bodies or do you only use it on one ?

[carl_becker2]

A prime lens has a single focal length. I have a D200 and use primes like the 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8 and 500mm P f4. If I had a FX format body and wanted a wide angle lens I would look at the 17-35mm f2.8 zoom. Using a polarizer to cut glare or enhance colors is the only filter I would use besides a ND to lower the shutter speed. For your D300 I would look at one of the DX wide zooms from Nikon, Sigma or Tokina. I use the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 but each does something well. If my main lens was the 200-400 zoom I would stay with the DX format because of the crop factor. If my main interest was low light then I would have a serious look at the FX bodies for the high ISO performance. I use wide angles mostly for the difference in perspective they offer by getting close to the subject.

[Hector Javkin]

Prime lenses are those that have a single focal length. (They are non-zoom lenses.) The 24mm PC lens I suggested

you consider is a prime lens, but in addition it offers tilt and shift. Shift will allow you to deal with

perspective distortion. Tilt will allow you to get everything in your landscapes in focus, from your toes to

infinity, should you decide to do that, without the loss of sharpness from using very small apertures. The use of

shift that Thom Hogan is suggesting will also give the lens a much wider angle of view than a normal 24mm, in

those circumstances that allow stitched images.

 

Finally, you might think of renting a lens to see if you like it. You can often get good weekly rates on the web.

If you want to try a PC

or tilt-shift lens, renting, and taking some time to learn to use it before you make a final decision, would be a

good idea.

[wpahnelas]

with a D3, 17mm will seem very wide if you're used to DX format -- thus the suggestion for the 17-35 f/2.8. as for having and using two bodies, the typical configuration for using FX and DX in tandem is to take advantage of DX's 1.5 crop to obtain the most reach from your long lenses, while leveraging the FX sensor's advantage on the wide end. you may find that even with a D3, your 200-400 lens gives the most "bang for the buck" on a D300 because of the extra reach. that's something you'll have to decide on your own, especially after using your gear out in the field. you can, however, use the FX camera with both long and wide lenses, especially if the D3's superior high-ISO performance would significantly enhance your images.

[ShunCheung]

If you feel that the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX is not providing sufficient quality, I wonder which tripod you are using. I would make sure that you use a very sturdy one.

[richard_coke]

Thanks to all for your feedback, It has helped hugely.

Regards,

Richard

[shuo_zhao]

If you're using both DX and FX, the 17-35 f/2.8 is probably the best compromise. The 17-55 and 12-24 won't work all that well on FX, while the 14-24 has a very short zoom ratio and can't use filters. Since you are pretty sure that you'll get a FX camera, and that you're only feeling that "you could go a little wider" than 17mm (equivalent to 25.5mm angle of view on FX) on DX, 17mm should probably be wide enough for you. The two lenses still in production for FX that are wider than the 17mm are the 14 2.8 and 14-24 2.8; both are special purpose lenses that won't allow the usage of filters.

[alastair_anderson]

Here's a view of the South Downs (East Sussex UK) taken with a D3 and a 14-24.<div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

Sorry, thought that was a small enough file. Here it is again.<div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

And another:<div></div>

[rich_evans]

If you can find a 20 f/2.8, that is a sweet lens for the FX format D3 - I also use the 20-35 f/2.8. For the DX format D300, I'd probably use the 12-24 as most have suggested above. --Rich

[seth_ribe1]

Richard,

 

The 17-35 f/2.8 is a great lens ... but it's heavy!

 

Seth

[julianv]

I am using a D700 with the 24-70 f/2.8 and 14-24 f/2.8, and this combination (although bulky and heavy for hiking) is giving me very nice

results. At 24mm, the 14-24 is sharper in the corners than the 24-70, and it is even better at the wide end.

 

My experience with the 17-35 f/2.8 is very limited. I rented one for a weekend and used it with a D2X. My impression is that the 14-24

is better in the range where they overlap.

 

If you want to use filters with the 14-24, you will need to jury-rig some sort of large fixture in front of the lens. That's not an issue for me.

I sometimes like to use a polarizer to darken the sky, but for focal lengths greater than 24mm (on FX) the darkening effect varies a lot

across the frame, and can be distracting. I don't like fiddling with graduated NDs, especially since it's often easier to get a similar effect in

post processing apps.

 

When I started with the 14-24, I was mostly shooting at the long end. But I am discovering more and more ways to use the ultra-wide

range. I think all the shots in this gallery were made with my 14-24.

 

http://julianv.zenfolio.com/p447190446

 

Note, in particular, the fourth image, shot from the porch of the visitor center. This does not look like an ultra--wide shot, because I

applied a perspective correction in Photoshop.