Landscape Photography Lens?

[phild2k]

Hi all,

I'm looking for the very best FF Wide Angle Zoom lens for a Nikon D750 that is at least F/2.8 (preferably faster if possible), unlimited budget.

Cheers!

 

[tirediron]

Nikon 14-24 f2.8.

 

[JTPhotography]

Yep, I have this lens. It is legendary, and for good reason. Ultra sharp at all apertures with minimal distortion. Drawback is you can't use threaded filters. I have the lee filter kit for mine but it is cumbersome. There are none with smaller apertures. If you need regular filter use, I think the 17-35 is your other option.

 

[D-B-J]

Yupp, the 14-24 2.8 is the ONLY option. But, you can't use filters. So as a landscape lens it's utterly foolish. The 16-35 f4 VRII is a MUCH more logical choice as it's just as sharp and can actually take filters.

Have you thought about the new 20mm 1.8G lens? It's the widest/lowest aperture lens that I know of that's made by Nikon. Sure you could stitch an image or two if you want ultra-wide apertures.

Jake

 

[JTPhotography]

Yupp, the 14-24 2.8 is the ONLY option. But, you can't use filters. So as a landscape lens it's utterly foolish.

Incorrect. The 17-35 is 2.8.

The 14-24 is awesome as a landscape lens when used with the Lee filter kit.

I also have the new 20 1.8, it is a great lens but probably not wide enough for most.

 

[D-B-J]

Yupp, the 14-24 2.8 is the ONLY option. But, you can't use filters. So as a landscape lens it's utterly foolish.

Incorrect. The 17-35 is 2.8.

The 14-24 is awesome as a landscape lens when used with the Lee filter kit.

I also have the new 20 1.8, it is a great lens but probably not wide enough for most.

But he said the very BEST FF wide angle. I'm not sure I count the 17-35 in that category.

 

[JTPhotography]

Yupp, the 14-24 2.8 is the ONLY option. But, you can't use filters. So as a landscape lens it's utterly foolish.

Incorrect. The 17-35 is 2.8.

The 14-24 is awesome as a landscape lens when used with the Lee filter kit.

I also have the new 20 1.8, it is a great lens but probably not wide enough for most.

But he said the very BEST FF wide angle. I'm not sure I count the 17-35 in that category.

As good or better than the 16-35 depending on which review you read. And it has 2.8. VR is a non issue on ultra wides.

 

[D-B-J]

Yupp, the 14-24 2.8 is the ONLY option. But, you can't use filters. So as a landscape lens it's utterly foolish.

Incorrect. The 17-35 is 2.8.

The 14-24 is awesome as a landscape lens when used with the Lee filter kit.

I also have the new 20 1.8, it is a great lens but probably not wide enough for most.

But he said the very BEST FF wide angle. I'm not sure I count the 17-35 in that category.

As good or better than the 16-35 depending on which review you read. And it has 2.8. VR is a non issue on ultra wides.

See I'm in a different camp then. IMO 2.8 is highly unnecessary for landscapes (unless you do astro, which isn't landscapes). Who shoots a landscape at 2.8?? Nobody! It's usually f11 or above, so to me, the VR is more important. I can shoot f11 handheld in fading light better with a VR equipped lens than a f2.8 non-VR lens. I've shot well after sunset at 16mm, 1/15th, handheld, and never had to worry [emoji106][emoji106]

 

[JTPhotography]

I agree about the 2.8 but the op mentioned it so I assume he is doing astro. If so then the 14-24 is the way to go. By habit I am never without my tripod so vr isn't an issue for me, but I see your point.

Also, tamron has the new 15-30 2.8vr. No filter thread and as yet untested but also an option.

 

[D-B-J]

I agree about the 2.8 but the op mentioned it so I assume he is doing astro. If so then the 14-24 is the way to go. By habit I am never without my tripod so vr isn't an issue for me, but I see your point.

Also, tamron has the new 15-30 2.8vr. No filter thread and as yet untested but also an option.

Oh good point, I completely forgot about that one. I'm not sure it could hold a candle to the 14-24 though... I don't think many lenses can.

 

[JTPhotography]

I agree about the 2.8 but the op mentioned it so I assume he is doing astro. If so then the 14-24 is the way to go. By habit I am never without my tripod so vr isn't an issue for me, but I see your point.

Also, tamron has the new 15-30 2.8vr. No filter thread and as yet untested but also an option.

Oh good point, I completely forgot about that one. I'm not sure it could hold a candle to the 14-24 though... I don't think many lenses can.

Funny thing is, I love the 20 1.8 so much, if nikon would make a 14 or 16 or similar I would ditch the 14-24

 

[D-B-J]

I agree about the 2.8 but the op mentioned it so I assume he is doing astro. If so then the 14-24 is the way to go. By habit I am never without my tripod so vr isn't an issue for me, but I see your point.

Also, tamron has the new 15-30 2.8vr. No filter thread and as yet untested but also an option.

Oh good point, I completely forgot about that one. I'm not sure it could hold a candle to the 14-24 though... I don't think many lenses can.

Funny thing is, I love the 20 1.8 so much, if nikon would make a 14 or 16 or similar I would ditch the 14-24

I know. Perfection would be a 16mm 1.4 or 1.8, I'd love that for artsy stuff and astro work.

 

[phild2k]

Sorry I should have clarified. I do primarily landscape photography but also astro (specifically Northern Lights) which obviously requires big wide open apertures.

Thanks for all the information, the 14-24 seems to get the consensus vote, although I have to admit I'm very disappointed with the lack of threaded filter support, a bizarre move by Nikon? That renders my $250 B+W circular polarizer useless

 

[D-B-J]

Sorry I should have clarified. I do primarily landscape photography but also astro (specifically Northern Lights) which obviously requires big wide open apertures.

Thanks for all the information, the 14-24 seems to get the consensus vote, although I have to admit I'm very disappointed with the lack of threaded filter support, a bizarre move by Nikon? That renders my $250 B+W circular polarizer useless

Soooooooo. Why not get two? Pick up the 16-35 f4 VRII for about $1250 and the 20mm 1.8G for $800. For about $100 more you get two lenses and the best of both words. A wonderful wide angle for landscapes and a beast Astro lens. If I had astro shots available to me I'd jump on that 20mil. And the difference between 16 and 20 isn't sooooo bad. You can always combine two @20mil for a nice wide angle shot [emoji106][emoji106]

 

[phild2k]

Soooooooo. Why not get two? Pick up the 16-35 f4 VRII for about $1250 and the 20mm 1.8G for $800. For about $100 more you get two lenses and the best of both words. A wonderful wide angle for landscapes and a beast Astro lens. If I had astro shots available to me I'd jump on that 20mil. And the difference between 16 and 20 isn't sooooo bad. You can always combine two @20mil for a nice wide angle shot [emoji106][emoji106]

That's actually not a bad idea at all. How good is the 16-35 compared to the 14-24, though?