Landscape Photography

[Kanthaka]

Hello all, as the title suggests, I wanted to get into landscape photography so I figured I needed a wide angle lens. Initially, I was looking into Nikon's 14-24 mm lens but that price tag though... I mean I guess I could go for it BUT then I found out about the Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 lens. I've already read some reviews on other sites about this lens and for the most part, it sounds like it's pretty solid. What do you guys think? Anyone here have it and can vouch for it? Or just anyone who wants to throw their opinion out there? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[480sparky41 41]

There is no such thing as a lens made for landscape. ANY lens can be used for landscapes.

 

[Alexr25]

Have you tried photographing landscapes with your current lenses? You don't need a super wide lens to produce good landscapes in fact I'm not a great fan of ultra-wide lenses for landscape photography, sometimes they do produce a nice effect but generally they tend to cram too much into the picture. My favorite focal length for landscape is around 35mmFF/24mmAPS-C.
I see no advantage in using a fast lens. The lens quality rather than maximum aperture should be the deciding factor. Fast lenses are heavier and landscape photography usually involves quite a lot of walking while carrying all your gear. Also as a general rule you are after a decent depth of field in your images so you are going to be using the lens stopped down and if you are at all serious about landscape photography the camera will be on a tripod.
I would assume that you already have a kit lens that came with the camera, get yourself a good tripod and a remote shutter release and start taking photos, if in a couple of years you find that you need a different lens you will know what lens to get that suits your style of photography.

 

[weepete]

11-16mm is a bit limited in terms of focal length, as it keeps you in that ultrawide range. The 14-24mm would be more useful IMO as it will give you the ultrawide to wide option and is a bit more flexible as far as perspective goes.

 

[Kanthaka]

11-16mm is a bit limited in terms of focal length, as it keeps you in that ultrawide range. The 14-24mm would be more useful IMO as it will give you the ultrawide to wide option and is a bit more flexible as far as perspective goes.

I forgot to mention that I own a Nikon D5200 so I don't have a full frame.

 

[Kanthaka]

Have you tried photographing landscapes with your current lenses? You don't need a super wide lens to produce good landscapes in fact I'm not a great fan of ultra-wide lenses for landscape photography, sometimes they do produce a nice effect but generally they tend to cram too much into the picture. My favorite focal length for landscape is around 35mmFF/24mmAPS-C.
I see no advantage in using a fast lens. The lens quality rather than maximum aperture should be the deciding factor. Fast lenses are heavier and landscape photography usually involves quite a lot of walking while carrying all your gear. Also as a general rule you are after a decent depth of field in your images so you are going to be using the lens stopped down and if you are at all serious about landscape photography the camera will be on a tripod.
I would assume that you already have a kit lens that came with the camera, get yourself a good tripod and a remote shutter release and start taking photos, if in a couple of years you find that you need a different lens you will know what lens to get that suits your style of photography.

Yes, I have tried taking landscape shots with my 18-55mm kit lens. But, tbh, most of my shots are taken between 18-35mm. It's rare that I go over unless I'm taking pics of people. Anyway, the reason I wanted a wide lens is because I still feel like I'm not capturing enough of the landscape.

 

[Ido]

Anyway, the reason I wanted a wide lens is because I still feel like I'm not capturing enough of the landscape.

Using an ultra-wide-angle lens to get everything inside the frame typically makes for boring images. They're usually more useful for emphasizing distance, or distorting perspective and foreground/background relationship. You may notice that the images you like most that were shot with an ultra-wide-angle lens have a strong foreground element; often the photographer gets really close to that foreground element, to make it more prominent in the image, while still including a vast landscape behind it.

To be honest, I find that I use my UWA lens mostly to photograph man-made objects. I'm not saying it isn't useful for landscape photography—I have used it for that, but I tend to prefer focal lengths in the 16mm–24mm (as it pertains to your camera), as well as ~70mm and longer. That's just me, though.

While the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is one hell of a lens, it isn't the right lens for your camera. It is supposed to be a very wide lens for an FX camera, and doing that while also having a wide aperture and a well corrected lens is hard and expensive, and it makes for a heavyweight. With a DX camera, you can't use a lot of what it was made to be (because it isn't nearly as wide for you in practice), and this means the size, weight and price are basically wasted.

If you need the f/2.8 aperture, then the Tokina lenses are solid choices—either the 11-16mm, or the new(er) 11-20mm. If you don't, there are smaller and lighter lenses you can check out, like the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6.

 

[snowbear117 48]

Yes, I have tried taking landscape shots with my 18-55mm kit lens. But, tbh, most of my shots are taken between 18-35mm. It's rare that I go over unless I'm taking pics of people. Anyway, the reason I wanted a wide lens is because I still feel like I'm not capturing enough of the landscape.

In the mean time, try stitching together multiple shots to get the panoramic view.

 

[Kanthaka]

There is no such thing as a lens made for landscape. ANY lens can be used for landscapes.

True. Any lens can be used for landscape. It just all depends on what you focus on, I guess. I just worded my post that way because I thought that it was the easiest and most understandable way to explain what I wanted. >_>

 

[jsecordphoto]

Some odd advice in here. I'm primarily a landscape shooter, and I use an ultra wide for probably 90% of my images. I do love having some midrange focal lengths, and a telephoto can be great for landscapes, but saying ultra wides produce boring landscape photos is just wrong. The 11-16 or 11-20 would be a great choice. They're pretty sharp, can use screw on filters, and reasonably priced. I used the 11-16 for the majority of my photos when I was shooting crop a few years ago.

 

[480sparky41 41]

Some odd advice in here. I'm primarily a landscape shooter, and I use an ultra wide for probably 90% of my images. I do love having some midrange focal lengths, and a telephoto can be great for landscapes, but saying ultra wides produce boring landscape photos is just wrong. The 11-16 or 11-20 would be a great choice. They're pretty sharp, can use screw on filters, and reasonably priced. I used the 11-16 for the majority of my photos when I was shooting crop a few years ago.

It all goes to proper use of whatever lens is used. Ultra-wides, wides, normal, tele, super-teles.... all can be mis-used resulting in crap images. But used well, all can create fantastic images.

 

[Ido]

saying ultra wides produce boring landscape photos is just wrong.

I guess I got carried away a little. What I meant is that it typically takes a more careful and deliberate composition to make an interesting image with an ultra-wide-angle lens than it is with a longer lens, at least in my experience. You get so much stuff in, you have to lead the eye somewhere—it often gets caught in less interesting elements of the scene.

 

[fmw]

saying ultra wides produce boring landscape photos is just wrong.

I guess I got carried away a little. What I meant is that it typically takes a more careful and deliberate composition to make an interesting image with an ultra-wide-angle lens than it is with a longer lens, at least in my experience. You get so much stuff in, you have to lead the eye somewhere—it often gets caught in less interesting elements of the scene.

That would depend on how far you are from the subject. Using ultra wide angles normally means being closer to the subject so that you can produce a spread perspective and yet fit the subject into the frame. You can fit the subject into the frame with a super telephoto as well but, since you will be further from the subject, you will get a compressed perspective. Different focal length lenses simply provide a tool to help you control perspective. I tend to use wide angles quite a lot for landscapes but I've shot landscapes with a huge 500mm f4 telephoto as well. Different techniques for different results.

 

[Kanthaka]

Some odd advice in here. I'm primarily a landscape shooter, and I use an ultra wide for probably 90% of my images. I do love having some midrange focal lengths, and a telephoto can be great for landscapes, but saying ultra wides produce boring landscape photos is just wrong. The 11-16 or 11-20 would be a great choice. They're pretty sharp, can use screw on filters, and reasonably priced. I used the 11-16 for the majority of my photos when I was shooting crop a few years ago.

Ikr? It's kinda weird seeing people discourage me from getting a wide angle lens for landscapes.

 

[480sparky41 41]

Ikr? It's kinda weird seeing people discourage me from getting a wide angle lens for landscapes.

Not discouraging you at all. Just letting you know that landscapes are not the sole domain of wide-angles. Any lens, properly used, can work to create great landscapes.