Nikon DX lens for landscape photography

[sunilmendiratta]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Can anyone suggest a good lens for landscape photography.I have 18-55 mm VR lens and i heard kit lens is not so good for such photography.Personally i did not develop an eye to spot a difference but of course there will be difference and that is why pro lenses are expensive.</p>

<p>Requesting for suggestions and if anyone point out the advantage of suggested lens over kit lens.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Sunil</p>

<p> </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Not necessarily. Many professional lenses are expensive because they have lots of extra light collecting glass that allow lots of light in - good when its darker and you're shooting let's say ducks flying at f/2.8 and have to use a fast shutter. But when you're shooting landscapes, you usually stop down to smaller openings like f/16 to increase your depth-of-field which increase what's in focus. The costly f/2.8 advantage is of little value for landscape photographers because you'll have no depth of field and only a very small part of your picture will be in focus. You'll never use f/2.8. Also, since you're on a tripod, or should be for landscapes, you can then have a slow shutter speed to make up for the smaller aperture. Better to live with an f/4.5 but have a good sharp lens with lots of contrast.</p>

<p>Now I'm not familiar with the lens you mention. So others will have to tell you if it meets other criteria.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Your 18-55 VR is a good sharp lens. Rather than replace it, I suggest getting an ultrawide zoom. There are a lot of good ones. The Nikon lens is very expensive. The Sigma 10-20 (either version) and Tokina 12-24 are very good lenses and much less expensive. Ultrawides open up a whole new world of landscapes. Just look through one and you'll see.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Personally, I'd go to the store, ask to sample the lenses they would say are good for landscapes (good performers at infinity) and take some pictures of the landscape out the door of the shop. Go home, put them on your computer and zoom in. Look at what you see in the detail, at the corners (are they soft and fuzzy?), at contrasty points (does it look natural), that kind of thing. See what *you* think of them versus your 18-55. Ask the camera salesman what you should be looking for to indicate quality. </p>

<p>Then you can decide if it's worth it to get a new lens, and if so, which one and why. And buy it from the shop who helped you, if you can. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Sunil - you say you heard that your lens isn't good for landscape work, but what did YOUR photos show? That's all that really counts, you know!</p>

[kum03]

<p>Without knowing what camera body you use it's a bit harder to comment, but for landscape, your lens should be good enough for F8-f13 or so. In general, landscapers use lowest iso as possible, somebody already mention tripod, use lens hood, use hyperfocal technique, mirror lockup function/timer/cable release and with your lens, turn the VR off if not handheld. Shoot RAW if possible, post process with good softwares to get the max quality out of your pic data. Scale and sharpen properly for type of paper and printer. What I find is that kit lenses tends too be a little less contrasty than the pro lenses, but you can crank up the colors in post process to taste. If you still want to compare the difference with the pro lens, rent a 12-24mm F/4G afs DX, this lens is crazy sharp and made for landscape. Good luck:)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you do not know whether you need another lens, you don't need it.<br>

The 18-55VR at f/8 will perform perfectly fine for landscape. The point on getting a wide-angle is a good one, since it really adds something you do not have now. However, the notion that landscape work equals wide-angle is a a matter of taste. Generally, I end up at 24mm or 35mm on many occassions. Wide angle lenses need more consideration for composition and use, and not everybody's cup of tea.<br>

So, I'd say: go out and give your 18-55 a good try, and you'll see it'll get the job done. Use it to learn which focal lengths really matter to you, and then decide what kind of lens would improve your photography.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>I have 18-55 mm VR lens and i heard kit lens is not so good for such photography</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What don't you like about this lens now?<br>

..or; what disappoints you in your landscape images?</p>

<p>To be nit realistic, IMO, no DX or FX camera is well suited for excellent landscape photography as this is the domain of <strong>medium</strong> or<strong> large</strong> format.<br>

You can certainly get acceptable landscape images with your current camera, but if you desire to shoot primarily landscapes, you will eventually see the need for the larger formats.</p>

[acbeddoe]

<p>I'm guessing you have a DX camera. Most of my better landscape shots on a DX camera have been taken in the 17-55mm range, and some longer; I am not a fan of ultra-wide for landscapes.<br>

As with others, I suggest you go shoot with your lens and see what you get, then think about what you can't seem to do with that lens.</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>I enjoyed the 18-55 when I had it. It's certainly capable of very good results. </p>

<p>I'd also suggest that if you are 'not going to see the difference' between it and other lenses, there is no reason to upgrade equipment. </p>

<p>Instead, shoot more and learn to use the current lens the best way possible. </p>

<p>Best of luck.</p>

<p>Bjorn<br /></p>

[joshuasigar]

<p>The only reason I don't use 18-55 (I use some old 17-35) is because I used Lee filter kit and 18-55's filter thread rotates when the lens focuses; it messes up the positioning of graduated neutral density filter. And I also like all my lenses to have filter size of 77mm so that I don't have to worry about getting adapters for my filter holder.</p>

<p>Get a 10-24 (or some other ultrawide lenses). You don't know if you like it or not until you try it. If you read some sort of "how to take landscape photos" book, big fat chance it will feature photos taken with an ultrawide.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

I sometimes use a large format camera for landscapes. All of the lenses that I use on this camera fall into the range of

focal lengths that your 18-55 covers. The widest one is about equivalent to 17 mm DX and the longest one is about 48

mm DX. I never felt as though I need wider or longer lenses. This range gives you plenty of coverage. Learn to get the

most out of the gear that you already own. Chasing a new lens every time you feel uninspired not the answer.

[philip_tam]

<p>Your 18-55mm VR lens is a great lens for landscape. There are lenses that are better in some conditions, but until you can identify where the 18-55mm limits you, you don't need to buy another lens. You might be throwing money at a problem you don't have.</p>

<p>But, I can tell you a few areas where you might be limited with your kit lens:<br>

1. Filters: Kit lenses usually have the lens mount rotating during focusing. This could be a major pain if you eventually learn to use Circular Polarizing Filters and/or Graduated Neutral Density filters (the square kind). Most mid-to-pro grade lenses will not have the front element rotating during focusing.<br>

2. Zoom Range: 18-55mm covers a lot of territory, but you might find some use with a 10-20, or 10-24, or 12-24 Ultrawide Angle Zoom. Caveat: these lenses tend to make poor pictures unless you're skilled with composition.</p>

<p>Otherwise, your kit lens can be quite decent. Just remember to stop down... f/8 is usually the sweet spot for kit lenses, and you go up and down from there depending on what you need.</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Stick with the 18-55 until your skill surpasses it.<br>

Then get the 20/2.8 AFD and enjoy some more image quality...but the so called consumer 18-55 is a good lens. In DX you might want to go wider.<br>

If you do want to go wider think about the Nikon or Tokina ulta wide zooms, but they are not inexpensive. I had the Tokina ATX Pro 11-16/2.8 and found it awesome. But Nikon has the 10-24 now. Thats supposed to be very good too.<br>

One thing to remember about using wide angle lenses in 35mm photography, film or digital, is that to get the 100 degrees or so of width in the shot, the centre is pushed away in the frame. True landscape photographers use a wider film in medium format like 6x9, 6x12, 6x17 to get the breadth of image without pushing the center away.<br>

Small steps....</p>

[s_ren_wrang1]

<p>I'd recommend the Sigma 10-20 mm f4.5-5.6. I have it myself, and I'm very happy. I've been using it alot for landscape photos. And it's not very expensive, especially if you buy a used one.<br>

As said before, you don't need a lens with a large max aperture, because you'll NEVER use it for landscapes. Usually you'll work with f/12 - f/16.<br>

Here are 2 pictures I've taken with that lens.</p>

<p><img src="http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/146/0/5/Wonderful_Neighbourhood_by_WraZor.jpg" alt="" width="712" height="463" /><br>

<img src="http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/143/a/9/Sunset_Over_the_Lake_by_WraZor.jpg" alt="" width="711" height="460" /></p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Nice shots Soren.<br>

Alan.</p>