Lenses for landscape

[RaymondC]

Hi,

 

A few of my photography friends set up their websites and put a few images for sale. A number of them also do

things like children photography and macro.

 

After some encouragement, I thought about something similar, my work manager is also wanting some pictures to be

made into Xmas cards although I don't think mine are that good but anyway ...

 

I am more into landscapes. What are the ideal lenses? If say I want to print up to 20x30, is a DX dSLR with a

Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon 80-200/2.8D suffice? If I wanted slower lenses that is more portable are they ok, I will

be shooting at f/8 or more. On film is a Nikon 18-35 suffice and maybe like a 80-400 for that convenience of the

long zoom and speed isn't really needed for me.

 

If I go for manual focus lenses with film, are any of the primes good. Like the 20/4 and the 28/24/2.0, 85, 180

etc etc.. I've got a Fm2n which I quite enjoy and quite like the 28/24 at 2.0 for a travel photography point of

view for handheld low light and that it has a 52mm filter thread.

 

 

Thanks.

[bradfarlow]

One of my favorites with film or digital is the 25-50mm f/4. Read about it here:

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

[bruce_margolis]

Ray, I shoot a lot of landscape stuff but really, the focal length of the lens is determined by what you are trying to photograph. So the short answer is, it depends.

 

If you want wide scenics, a wider lens is necessary. If you want one of those isolated shots with a large sun/moon and something neat in the foreground, you want a longer lens.

 

Much more important than the lens is having a decent tripod, even more so if you want 20 x 30 prints.

[landon wright photography]

I have used the 18-135 that came with the D80 and got good results with it. I also like the 18-105 vr that came with the D90.

For kit lenses they are pretty good for the dX format. I have more experience with the 18-135 and have taken many quality

photos and printed large prints from them. It's light and very sharp for the price.<div></div>

[landon wright photography]

Better image here<div></div>

[wpahnelas]

ray, you don't mention which DSLR model you have... with a D200 and up, your MF lenses will meter on a DSLR -- and they are perfectly good on digital as well as film. it's worth experimenting, if you have older glass. as another poster noted, the scene should determine the lens, rather than the other way around. just something to think about...

[eric friedemann]

I see a lot of large prints made from Nikon DX DSLRs. Your threshold issue is not lenses; its that making a 20x30 inch image from any Nikon DX DSLR would not be optimal. Even the D300 simply doesn't have the native resolution to make an image that large at anything approaching 300 p.p.i.

 

 

You could uprez and make a 20x30 inch print. However, you'd get poster quality- and might be content with that, if you plan to view your prints from six feet or more away.

 

 

That said, the best wide angle zoom I've used for landscape on a Nikon DX DSLR is the 12-24mm f/4.0 DX lens. As you can see, beyond 11x14 inches, the quality of the lens really starts to fall off:

 

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5478/nikon-12-24mm-f4g-dx-af-s.html

 

 

I've owned an 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD lens. It is excellent for an 80-200mm zoom lens, but again, enlarging to 20x30 inches from that lens would not be my first choice of things to do.

[cmars]

Well, you have a lot of options...

 

I would have to personally recommend the Tokina 12-24mm F4 as being a great lens. Sturdy build. Good price point. (Though, I have not used the Sigma 10-20mm, or Tokina's new super-wide 11-16mm 2.8).

 

There are also your short zooms to consider. Nikon 12-24mm, 17-55mm, etc. A wide angle Nikon prime lens is another option: 14mm 2.8, 20mm 2.8, (if you are willing to use your feet as a zoom).

 

Finally, there are landcape photographers who work with longer zooms. So, now you are probably even more confused. Good luck!

 

Charlie

[bill_keane2]

http://www.photo.net/photo/5640293&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5872694

 

I shot the first with a Sigma 10-20, and the second with a Tamron 17-50. Enlarged by EL-CO Colorlabs to 20x30, they look excellent.

[eric friedemann]

Again, IMHO, enlarging 32x from a 0.62 inch x 0.93 inch Nikon sensor to get to 20x30 inches will not produce an excellent print. But print quality is subjective, and if you like the prints you're getting, God bless.

[bernie moore]

I have 3 20X30s mounted on foamboard, framed and hanging, and they hardly look like posters. Two are from an Oly C8080 and one with a Nikon 70-200. Standing right in front of them the clarity of detail is excellent. Like Eric says "Quality is subjective." Thanks for the blessing:)

[bill_keane2]

"print quality is subjective"

 

No argument here. But in the attached image, the name of the church is easliy readable in the 20"x30" print, and this particular print has been lauded as the best of this building anyone has ever seen... Would it be better with a 24MP camera? It'd better be!

 

BUT to read the lettering (as people have done), one has to get WAY closer to the image than normal. In other words, it's (subjectively) plenty detailed enough, and may have been even better with a tripod.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5872694

[35mmdelux]

The classic landscape lens for FF is 28mm, @ f/11. For crop camera I was very impressed with the Tokina 12-24mm. Easily the best third party lens I have ever used.good luck.