Best lens for landscape photography?

[shaunly]

I had the Nikon 12-24 f/4 when I shot with a d90. It's suppose to be one of the best ultra wide for DX sensor, but overall I didn't like it. Way too much distortion at 12-16mm and it's kind of soft wide open too. Contrast also isn't that great wide opened. Hopefully that's not the best ultra wide lens have to offer for crop sensor. The Tokina 12-24 f/4 version is "suppose to be just as good" as the Nikon, which IMO isn't that great. I've never used the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or any of the newer Sigma 8/10mm, but hopefully it's better than the Nikon 12-24.

 

[shaunly]

Here's an example of the Nikon 12-24 f/4

@ 15mm f/4, 1/180 sec, ISO-320, spot meter, in-cam jpeg output with slight PP

same image 100% crop

Distortion is actually not that bad at 15mm, but still pretty soft wide open. Also lost in contrast too. Contrast was slightly boosted in PP.

Considering the price of this lens, it's definitely not worth it.

 

[SwiftTone]

Tamron 17-50 easy in my opinion. If you go ultra wide nothing beats Tokinas 11-16/2.8 if its a bit much then go there 12-24/4 not as wide but about 250 cheaper there both outstanding lenses and far better than anything I have seen from the others including Canon and Nikon.

Tokina 12-24 AF mode will not work on my Nikon D3000, will the sigma AF work on my Nikon D3000?!

There are 2 different versions of the Tokina 12-24mm. The newer "DX II" version will AF with your camera. I was looking at that lens after renting the Nikon DX 12-24mm this past weekend, now I'm hooked on ultra-wides.

After thinking about it a little, it might be worth it for me to just go from my D5000 to a D90 so I have a wider and cheaper selection of lenses.

 

[icassell]

If you think you're hooked on ultrawides, check out this site:

10-20mm.com

 

[kundalini]

Mason, with landscapes and ultrawide lenses, it is my opinion that AF is not a priority. I know people that have and have seen many, many images with the Sigma 10-20mm lens. Bang for the buck, this is the go-to lens for ultrawide.

I had the Nikon 12-24 f/4 when I shot with a d90. It's suppose to be one of the best ultra wide for DX sensor, but overall I didn't like it.

Judging from your photo I can feel your angst. However, can you identify that issue with the lens rather than operator error? Mine performs pretty well.

 

[MasonBW]

guys yall STILL haven't answered my question...

 

[icassell]

There is no BEST lens. Your lens choice depends on subject and your personal style. I suggested options, but you have to see how those fit into your way of shooting. You can even do some pretty amazing landscape work with a long telephoto given the right situation.

 

[Phranquey]

alright! but I still want to know if my Nikon D3000 will work with say a sigma 10-20 or Nikkor 18-35mm lens in AF mode...

I'm not sure if there's more than one version, but my Sigma 10-20mm shows "HSM" (HyperSonic Motor), which means it should AF on your D3000. IF there is more than one version, get the HSM.

 

[MasonBW]

alright! but I still want to know if my Nikon D3000 will work with say a sigma 10-20 or Nikkor 18-35mm lens in AF mode...

I'm not sure if there's more than one version, but my Sigma 10-20mm shows "HSM" (HyperSonic Motor), which means it should AF on your D3000. IF there is more than one version, get the HSM.

Thank you! Appreciate it, any good places to get the lens cheap and new?

 

[Luca Bertolli]

I don't like ultrawide lenses for landscapes. I love them for architecture photography and for all those situations in which you can play with perspective, but not for landscapes.
My ideal wide is a 24 mm for landscapes.
So I'm enthusiast about my 17-40 L. I don't need more.

 

[Steph]

I don't like ultrawide lenses for landscapes. I love them for architecture photography and for all those situations in which you can play with perspective, but not for landscapes.
My ideal wide is a 24 mm for landscapes.
So I'm enthusiast about my 17-40 L. I don't need more.

I agree with Luca. Anything under 24mm (on a full frame camera) is often too wide for landscapes or at least requires very careful composition to avoid vast expense of emptiness. It's definitely not easy to achieve good landscape composition with ultra wide angle lenses. Somehting like a 24mm (on a full frame camera) gives better results more of the time and the angle of view is easier to manage. Before you splash out, make sure you really need the wider view.

 

[Idahophoto]

I use my 17-50 Tamron far more than the 12-24 Tokina so I agree completely, though I absolutely love both these lenses.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The Nikon 12-24 never impressed me. I have a friend with it and the images out of his 18-70 are almost always sharper.

There is no best landscape lens, just the right tool for the right job. Not every picture has to be shot with a wide-angle lens, i've shot many landscape pictures with normal or telephoto lenses.

TBH your 18-55 is a great landscape lens when shot at f/8.

 

[Dao]

I'm here to ask what do you guys think about the best lens for landscape photography is

To be honest with you, your question is a tough question. It's because people use ultra-wide angle, wide angle, standard, telephoto and super telephoto (400mm+)lens for landscape photos. It depends on what type of landscape photo you want to take at that moment.

A book I read in the past has an example of a wide angle view as well as a telephoto view of landscape shots. They both nice photos. The one took with the telephoto lens was a little house with the bottom of a mountain as background.

So you may need to define what type of view you are looking for and may also define "best". Best could be "Best image quality", "Best price", "Best bang for the buck" or "Best for travel (all-in-one type)" ....

 

[MasonBW]

alright guys, I'm now trying to decide between the sigma 10-20, or the sigma 12-24? i think the 12-24 is more but have any of yall used either and have photos?