Going to Yellowstone and Teton. Need a good landscape lens

[johne37179]

<p>Take a look at the Sigma 10-20. It is my go to landscape lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I could never understand the widespread preference for wide angle lenses for landscapes. Sure, when you stand on some mountain top and have a wonderful view of some magnificent panorama, you really want to capture all of it, and reach for the widest angle lens you have. But when you get home and print the image you end up with a sort of picture postcard that is a condensed version of what you saw, but lacks most of the details that impressed your eyes when viewing it in person. Just my personal opinion. YMMV.</blockquote>

 

<p>I wrote an article about this, once. A postcard of a wide-angle shot both looks distorted and fails to give you the sweeping field of view that was the reason for taking it. However, print (or view on screen, or project) big and you can get the original impression back - the trick is to match the field of view from a sensible viewing distance. Unfortunately, this means you need a lot of resolution (there are worse approaches than a fish-eye) and somewhere to put 30" prints. But I can vouch that a large print I made of the Grand Canyon "works" much better than the screen-sized version, even if I'm cursing my D700's pixel count with it.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>John, I like that "500 mm separation" from bears. I guess that can be a corollary to my rule of life not to go places I am not on top of the food chain. Eg, the ocean or unarmed in the wilderness. Having seen first hand how fast a pissed off bear can run especially down hill when a fishing partner got too close to a cub, I will pass on closer that 500 mm. Besides, as above, DX, multiplier and 70-200 gives 500 mm. Think you can outrun a race horse? They are good for about 35 mph. A grizzly, up to 40 mph for short distances. Long enough to catch people who the fastest can run 24-30 mph and not even close to that for most of us. </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Andrew, you reminded me that I should take several shots in pano to stitch for Grand Canyon with my d700 next week should I want a large print. Thanks for the reminder. As a portrait guy, I don't shoot alot of landscapes but have seen some 10 foot wide stitched panos that produce huge files with phenomenal sharpness. I guess I have to get into landscape/critter zone. </p>

[john_harper9]

<p>Bob, I have encountered an adolescent grizzly in GTNP with only 25 ft. of shallow water between us. Fortunately not a sow with cubs. I am also amused by other bear on-lookers fingering their bear spray canisters and asking if anyone knows how to use them. A 40 mph charge leaves no time to learn. With grizzlies wandering across populated Park trails and also to the south end of Jackson Hole, I hike with the canister safety OFF.</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>I know this remark might not be popular with photo.netters, but personally, I am bored by more wildlife imagery. I know what a bear looks like. I don't need to see another mug shot of one.</p>

<p>Rich, regarding your comment, "plan on going FX in the future and don't want to married to DX lenses," I would add that going to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons is very exciting prospect, and not something you can do three times a year. Consider pulling the FX trigger now, if only something like a well-used D700.</p>

<p>With that said, as a professional who shoots two or three cameras at the same time with big glass on all of them, when I travel, I like to lighten my load and have fun. Since you have a D7100, which I can tell you is outstanding, you might consider one of Nikon's superzooms. I partnered my D7100 with the newest 18-200mm plus a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, and I didn't feel like there were any gaps. I was able to express myself very well with that combination.</p>

<p>Nikon offers an 18-300mm for almost twice the price, and I don't think it's worth it.</p>

<p>If you really, really feel like wildlife photography is at the center of your goals, you need to rent a 600mm.</p>

<p>You are welcome to check out my March trip shot with the 18-200mm and the 10-17mm fisheye here... http://richardbarron.net/traveller/2014/03/31/my-two-cents-march-2014/</p>

<p>My assessment of the 18-200mm here... http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/04/07/the-long-and-the-short-of-it-superzooms/</p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>A postcard of a wide-angle shot both looks distorted and fails to give you the sweeping field of view that was the reason for taking it. However, print (or view on screen, or project) big and you can get the original impression back - the trick is to match the field of view from a sensible viewing distance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. But the human binocular field of vision (horizontal) is, conservatively estimated, 90 degrees. At a sensible viewing distance of only 16" the print would have to be 32" wide. From 3 feet you need a print 6 feet wide. Maybe back to film transparencies and a slide projector is a solution. :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mike: Yes, hence my 30" print of the Grand Canyon, and the reason that I don't do that more often. :-) Sadly, my digital projector isn't really up to showing it in its full detail - though a combination of multiple projectors can work.<br />

<br />

Richard: Funny you should mention it. In 2008, I went on a holiday that included the Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon, and a badly-twisted knee instead of Horseshoe Bend. (Oh, and also Lightning Ridge and Perth.) Just before that holiday, the D700 came out; just after it, the 5D2 came out. That was the point at which I switched from Canon (where, to be fair, I had a cheapish set of lenses) to Nikon. No regrets, although I'm not sure a D700 is a landscape camera...</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>>>although I'm not sure a D700 is a landscape camera...<<<br>

<br>

I was thinking of a well-used bargain D700 as a gateway into FX.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>For my landscape shots I do not require extreme low light capability, very wide dynamic range, nor ability to significantly crop. The D700 has enough pixels to make some pretty big prints. So I will have to differ from Andrews remark. And I'll bet he has taken his share of landscapes with the D700 before he acquired his D800.</p>

[tom_rhyne]

<p>You have a very good DX camera, go for the 16-85mm lens. It will very quickly become your go-to lens and your standby travel lens. I've used the 16-85 with a D300 for years as my travel kit, and it covers the gamut very nicely. And it's sharp as a tack!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oh, absolutely - I have a lot of landscape shots with my D700, and I'm not about to claim it's not an improvement over the Eos 300D I had before. But the D700's strengths are it's low-light performance (for the time), speed, handling and autofocus capability. If I'd been buying a landscape-only camera, the 5Dmk2 would have been a better choice - people tend to think of landscapes in terms of what large format images can do, which means static subjects and higher resolution (and being lighter helps, too). The D600/610 and D800 are much better in terms of resolution and low-ISO dynamic range than the D700. The D700 is by no means a bad camera, and I plan to keep mine even if it's mostly a back-up, but I'd take a used D600 in preference at a similar price if I was buying for landscape shooting. If I mostly shot sports, maybe not so much.</p>

 

<blockquote>For my landscape shots I do not require extreme low light capability, very wide dynamic range, nor ability to significantly crop.</blockquote>

 

<p>I get the low light (that's what long exposures are for, and the D800's sensor heating might be an issue), but I'm a little surprised about the rest. Dynamic range is often considered very useful for landscapes - Ansel did his fair share of dodging and burning, after all. Grad filters aren't a perfect solution, even if your scenery is the right shape. It's very common for landscapes to contain a wide dynamic range, and not every attempt to recover the limits looks like an exposure fusion demonstration shot. As for cropping, even if I'm carrying a zoom, it's unusual to find 3:2 to be the perfect aspect ratio, and in landscapes you really can't "zoom with your feet". Though I concede that "no cropping at all" is not the same as "significantly crop". I don't claim to be the world's best landscape photographer, and there's a lot you can do to limit the amount of post-processing, but the difference in my shots when I switched to a D800 and could tune the dynamic range without getting lots of noise was pretty immediate.</p>

 

<blockquote>The D700 has enough pixels to make some pretty big prints.</blockquote>

 

<p>It does. Admittedly, I don't do a lot of the 30" prints I took to try to replicate the field of view of the Grand Canyon. There, I ran out of pixels (I would have done with the D800 too, just less so). Had I not mangled my knee and been carting a tripod, I'd have stitched. But resolution does help somewhat - and the D700 also has a very strong low-pass filter, compared to the D800 (let alone the D800E), which also affects things.</p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>AF Nikkor 24mm 2.8/D is very, very good lens - one of my favourites - if it's wide enough for you I am sure you won't regret (appr. 35mm on DX)</p>

[sridip_nag1]

<p>A viable option may be to rent one or two lenses.</p>