Landscape Photography

[Dave442]

1) For your camera you would want the Tokina version of the 11-16mm f2.8 II. This version has the focus motor.

2) The Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 is basically the replacement for the above. So either this one new or the above used is a good choice.

3) The one I am leaning towards is the 14-20mm f/2.0, but that is just the range I like.

 

[dxqcanada]

I've got the Tokina 1116 ... some quick test shots show it is sharper than any other UWA lens I've had, though that does not necessarily mean it is great ... I have not used it enough to say much more.

 

[SquarePeg38]

I also have the Tokina 11-16 and find it to be very sharp. I do understand what the previous posters are saying because to get an interesting wide angle shot, you have to have something interesting in the foreground as the middle of the frame can really seem far away and make for a boring photo. I love the way it makes the sky look. I will add that while I got it for landscapes, I use it more for indoor real estate photos and for shots of architecture than I do for typical outdoor scene shooting. I use my 17-70 for outdoor landscapes more than the wide angle. That being said, it's great to have in your bag and if you're wanting to buy an UWA for sure then it's a good choice, IMO. FYI - There is one poster on here who has it and has mentioned an issue with green sunflare spots. I have not had that issue. That's the only "bad review" I've seen on here of the Tokina 11-16.

 

[Kanthaka]

I also have the Tokina 11-16 and find it to be very sharp. I do understand what the previous posters are saying because to get an interesting wide angle shot, you have to have something interesting in the foreground as the middle of the frame can really seem far away and make for a boring photo. I love the way it makes the sky look. I will add that while I got it for landscapes, I use it more for indoor real estate photos and for shots of architecture than I do for typical outdoor scene shooting. I use my 17-70 for outdoor landscapes more than the wide angle. That being said, it's great to have in your bag and if you're wanting to buy an UWA for sure then it's a good choice, IMO. FYI - There is one poster on here who has it and has mentioned an issue with green sunflare spots. I have not had that issue. That's the only "bad review" I've seen on here of the Tokina 11-16.

Yeah while I was reading some reviews on these lens, the most common complaint about it was the green sunflare spots. But then I also read that that's actually a common problem with wide angle lens in general so I thought it just came with the territory. Glad to know that you haven't had that issue though. I'm starting to think that I shouldn't have named this thread "landscape photography". I mean yes, I do want to take pictures of landscapes but if I were tbh, I want to take pictures of places. Buildings (in and out) as an example.

 

[Kanthaka]

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.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean but couldn't explain. My current lens just wasn't giving me the perspective I wanted. When I went back and took a look at the pictures that were appealing to me, I realized that the photographers were using wide angle lenses. So, after doing more research, I knew I had to have one.

 

[480sparky41 41]

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.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean but couldn't explain. My current lens just wasn't giving me the perspective I wanted. When I went back and took a look at the pictures that were appealing to me, I realized that the photographers were using wide angle lenses. So, after doing more research, I knew I had to have one.

Lenses don't create perspective. That's a function of the spatial relationship between the camera's position and the subject.

 

[Kanthaka]

Lenses don't create perspective. That's a function of the spatial relationship between the camera's position and the subject.

Then what about convenience? I don't have to worry about taking a step back.

 

[fmw]

Lenses don't create perspective. That's a function of the spatial relationship between the camera's position and the subject.

Then what about convenience? I don't have to worry about taking a step back.

We aren't talking about convenience. We are talking about control of perspective. You control the perspective by the distance between your camera and the subject. The lens simply determines how much of the subject fits in the frame and records it.

 

[Kanthaka]

Lenses don't create perspective. That's a function of the spatial relationship between the camera's position and the subject.

Then what about convenience? I don't have to worry about taking a step back.

We aren't talking about convenience. We are talking about control of perspective. You control the perspective by the distance between your camera and the subject. The lens simply determines how much of the subject fits in the frame and records it.

That reply was supposed to be a joke... You know what? How about an example? I posted this picture on Instagram months ago. I took it with my Canon and then edited it on my phone using SnapSeed.

It's decent, I hope. I'm no pro. But I've seen other photographers create this certain look with their images. Perspective? Whatever you want to call it. I just couldn't get that. Idk how to explain it. I just figured I need/want a wide angle lens.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[480sparky41 41]

Then what about convenience? I don't have to worry about taking a step back.

If you don't move, your perspective doesn't change. Changing focal length will only change your field of view. Perspective will remain exactly the same.

That reply was supposed to be a joke... .....

Stand at the same spot and use an even shorter focal length and guess what? Your perspective is exactly the same. Use a longer focal length and guess what? Your perspective is exactly the same. 5mm 50mm 500mm. Stand still and the perspective is the same.

 

[SquarePeg38]

Well, yes, the Grand Canyon is someplace you would want a UWA. Or, you could do a panorama. This is a nice shot - good focus, nice colors, but nothing spectacular, IMHO, for 2 reasons, neither related to UWA... 1 - for landscapes you definitely want to be out during golden hour and that is not always possible for some public places that have visitor limitations. 2 - this looks like you had the camera pointed down and not level which gives it a weird pov which is not helped by the weird square-ish crop. I'm curious if that was the only vantage point available to you and why not a landscape crop for a landscape pic? You've cut off the edges of the river which kills it for me. If possible to get down on the ground and get a more straight on landscape shot, that would have been better. Also, with a UWA if you are not shooting level you get some really funky distortion. Which can be cool for certain shots but isn't good with most outdoor shots like this. This is just my 2 cents and I'm no expert but I do enjoy landscape photography and I take and view a lot of pics and this one just looks off to me.


Edit to add that by "down on the ground" I mean down on the ground of the ledge you were standing on, not down on the canyon floor.

 

[Kanthaka]

Then what about convenience? I don't have to worry about taking a step back.

If you don't move, your perspective doesn't change. Changing focal length will only change your field of view. Perspective will remain exactly the same.

That reply was supposed to be a joke... .....

Stand at the same spot and use an even shorter focal length and guess what? Your perspective is exactly the same. Use a longer focal length and guess what? Your perspective is exactly the same. 5mm 50mm 500mm. Stand still and the perspective is the same.

Fine. So it's not perspective. I'm pretty sure I stated in my previous post that I didn't know what to call it. And, from the posts so far, it doesn't seem like you're understanding what I want. So idk what to do at this point.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[Kanthaka]

Well, yes, the Grand Canyon is someplace you would want a UWA. Or, you could do a panorama. This is a nice shot - good focus, nice colors, but nothing spectacular, IMHO, for 2 reasons, neither related to UWA... 1 - for landscapes you definitely want to be out during golden hour and that is not always possible for some public places that have visitor limitations. 2 - this looks like you had the camera pointed down and not level which gives it a weird pov which is not helped by the weird square-ish crop. I'm curious if that was the only vantage point available to you and why not a landscape crop for a landscape pic? You've cut off the edges of the river which kills it for me. If possible to get down on the ground and get a more straight on landscape shot, that would have been better. Also, with a UWA if you are not shooting level you get some really funky distortion. Which can be cool for certain shots but isn't good with most outdoor shots like this. This is just my 2 cents and I'm no expert but I do enjoy landscape photography and I take and view a lot of pics and this one just looks off to me.


Edit to add that by "down on the ground" I mean down on the ground of the ledge you were standing on, not down on the canyon floor.

Yeah, the camera was pointed down. The particular ledge I was on had an upward slant to it. And yes, it irks me to no end that I wasn't able to get all of the river. It also irks me that I went to the Grand Canyon without a wide angle lens. That's why I wanted to buy one and was wondering Tokina vs. Nikon. I didn't really think that I was gonna be told that I didn't need one.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[SquarePeg38]

I've never used the Nikon. The Tokina is nice and gets good reviews. KEH has a used one for $339 rated Ex+ condition.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I've never used the Nikon. The Tokina is nice and gets good reviews. KEH has a used one for $339 rated Ex+ condition.

I definitely recommend checking out KEH. I've purchased quite a few lenses through them and their rating system tends to be pretty modest, for example I've purchased lenses rated Ex, and they looked absolutely brand new. Buying a used 11-16 (just make sure it's version II) would be a good idea, I know a ton of photographers, including myself, who bought the 11-16 but quickly upgraded to full frame and sold the lens, so there are usually quite a few of those lenses on the used market in great shape