# Best lens for landscape photography?



## MasonBW (Sep 25, 2010)

Hey guys, I'm here to ask what do you guys think about the best lens for landscape photography is? I'm fairly new to photography and I'm shooting with a Nikon D3000. I'm not looking to spend tons of money but the three lens I'm looking at and would love your opinion on, are the Nikkor 18-35mm, Tokina 12-24mm, or maybe the sigma 10-20. The Nikkor is a bit more but I'm willing to spend that if its worth it. Which has the best and sharpest wide angle? Thanks again and I'd love to hear everyones thoughts!

-Mason


----------



## itf (Sep 25, 2010)

i don't own any of them but after a lot of reviews, the sigma 10-20mm is on my wishlist.  the 18-35 is already within the focal length of the kit lens and I personally would like something wider than the 18mm.


----------



## Josh220 (Sep 25, 2010)

I would say Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, or Nikon 12-24. 18mm won't be wide enough.


----------



## Phranquey (Sep 25, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> 18mm won't be wide enough.


 
I agree. On a DX sensor, 18mm may leave you wanting for a little more "wide".




Josh220 said:


> I would say Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, or Nikon 12-24.


 
I have the Sigma 10-20mm, and I'm not dissapointed with it.  It's not the greatest out there, but the results are very respectable for the money.


----------



## Christians86 (Sep 25, 2010)

I had the Tokina 12-24, and as far as I remember I took that over the Sigma due to their quality. I was told it was as close as I could get the orginal 12-24 Nikon. Although I remember one key argument against was that the Tokina had a flaring and cromatic abb. problem. But for the price, and compared to what others told me about Sigma, I would think either Nikon or Tokina is the best choice.


----------



## MasonBW (Sep 26, 2010)

thanks for all the feedback! I just read now though that the Nikon D3000 does not have an internal motor so I don't think any of the lens would work with AF...? does anyone know if they would, I know the tokina won't..


----------



## eloisecox12 (Sep 27, 2010)

Just a thought, but an 18-55 kit lens _is_ a wide-angle lens capable of landscape photography. Going wider than that is looking for an_ ultra wide _lens.
Technique-wise, you could also consider panorama stitching to cover a wider field of view.


----------



## skieur (Sep 27, 2010)

Best overall lens for landscapes is an 18mm to 75mm. The problem with very wide lenses is that you need to be very close as in hanging off the edge of a canyon or building etc. to use them effectively and even then avoiding perspective distortion and leaning verticals becomes a problem.

Telephotos are also useful, when you have a moose or a dhou in the right area of a landscape compositionally but off in the distance.

skieur


----------



## MasonBW (Sep 27, 2010)

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...


----------



## icassell (Sep 27, 2010)

I have the Sigma 10-20 and love it.  On the other hand, I do a great deal of my landscape work with my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.


----------



## pbelarge (Sep 27, 2010)

skieur said:


> Best overall lens for landscapes is an 18mm to 75mm. The problem with very wide lenses is that you need to be very close as in hanging off the edge of a canyon or building etc. to use them effectively and even then avoiding _perspective distortion_ and _leaning verticals_ becomes a problem.
> 
> 
> skieur


 
There are times when these factors can add to an image. But you are correct that working with the lens and the landscape it will work better without those distortions. Practice with these wide lens and you will have a lot of fun.


----------



## Overread (Sep 28, 2010)

Don't forget sigma's new 8-16mm landscape lens - from what I've read whilst also being more expensive its a very strong and sharp lens


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 28, 2010)

Overread said:


> Don't forget sigma's new 8-16mm landscape lens - from what I've read whilst also being more expensive its a very strong and sharp lens



Looks like a good ultra wide but it appears as though you can't attach a polarizer to it which might be a problem to some.


----------



## Idahophoto (Sep 28, 2010)

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.


----------



## MasonBW (Sep 28, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> 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?!


----------



## shaunly (Sep 28, 2010)

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 (Sep 28, 2010)

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 (Sep 28, 2010)

MasonBW said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 28, 2010)

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

10-20mm.com


----------



## kundalini (Sep 28, 2010)

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.




shaunly said:


> 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 (Sep 28, 2010)

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


----------



## icassell (Sep 28, 2010)

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 (Sep 29, 2010)

MasonBW said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

Phranquey said:


> MasonBW said:
> 
> 
> > 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...
> ...



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


----------



## Luca Bertolli (Sep 30, 2010)

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 (Sep 30, 2010)

Luca Bertolli said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2010)

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 (Sep 30, 2010)

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 (Sep 30, 2010)

> 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 (Oct 2, 2010)

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?


----------



## icassell (Oct 2, 2010)

I love my 10-20.  Here are a couple of random images.


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 3, 2010)

Try starting with a Nikon 18-70mm AF-S.  It'll work with your camera and goes from pretty wide (27mm EFL)  ((effective focal length)) to 105mm EFL.  It has a great image quality, any distortion is easily taken care of in post and since Nikon stopped making them (I don't know why) you'd have buy one used for around $250.  The upside of buying one used is that if you decide to go ultra wide you can get your money back as they stay in fairly constant demand.

Since the upper range is 105mmEFL it is also a great walk around lens.

It's not fast at f/3.5-4.5 (but not slow either) but who takes landscapes after dark without a tripod anyway.

Good luck.


----------



## MasonBW (Oct 3, 2010)

I think I'm going to try a sigma, either 10-20 or 12-24 but thanks for the info


----------



## jake337 (Oct 3, 2010)

NIKON/SIGMA 14MM af f3.5 or 14mm f2.8 af possibly. not zooms but they'll put you around 21mm


----------



## MasonBW (Oct 16, 2010)

so wheres the best place/cheapest place to order a sigma 10-20 4-5.6 hsm?


----------



## timethief (Oct 16, 2010)

I got the sigma 10-20 f3.5 
I was very excited to get it over a year ago. unfortunately it was a bad copy. The focus was always off from day 1. Although they serviced it later i always had issues with it. It had sharpness issues. i was never satisfied with it. By some miracle i got them to replace it after around 1 year (not easy at all where i am living).
This second one seems to be working fine, but i cant say i love this lens maybe cause i was hugely dissapointed at start.


----------



## icassell (Oct 16, 2010)

timethief said:


> I got the sigma 10-20 f3.5
> I was very excited to get it over a year ago. unfortunately it was a bad copy. The focus was always off from day 1. Although they serviced it later i always had issues with it. It had sharpness issues. i was never satisfied with it. By some miracle i got them to replace it after around 1 year (not easy at all where i am living).
> This second one seems to be working fine, but i cant say i love this lens maybe cause i was hugely dissapointed at start.



That's too bad.  I don't have any experience with the f/3.5 version.


----------



## MasonBW (Oct 18, 2010)

icassell said:


> timethief said:
> 
> 
> > I got the sigma 10-20 f3.5
> ...



so you like your 4-5.6 version, and whered you buy yours?


----------



## icassell (Oct 19, 2010)

I love my 4-5.6.  It is sharp with nice color rendition and I find it a wonderful landscape lens.  It also, with care, can make some nice unusual portraits.

I bought it where I buy most of my new glass -- Amazon.com.  I find their prices to usually be better than the online photography places and their service to be very good. When you get into lens prices, shipping is free.






Canon 30D
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 @ 10mm

1/500sec f/7.1 ISO 125


----------



## MasonBW (Oct 20, 2010)

alright! thanks for the info, anyone use a nikkor 10-24?


----------



## RandyA (Oct 23, 2010)

A friend of mine has a Tamron 10-24, loves it!  Check B&H for best price.


----------



## ironsidephoto (Oct 25, 2010)

Agreed--check out the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. It's about $600. I've had that for a while and it makes some great landscape shots.

Things to be careful with on ultra-wide lenses:

1)Don't shoot people up close, especially at the widest focal length. Distortion does weird things.
2)Be careful with vignetting with filters at the widest focal length, and beware of the weird things that polarizers do to skies at the widest length as well.


----------



## MasonBW (Nov 1, 2010)

tokinas wont work my nikon D3000 so I'm kinda stuck..


----------



## Infidel (Nov 2, 2010)

MasonBW said:


> tokinas wont work my nikon D3000 so I'm kinda stuck..



Of course it works, you just need to focus manually, which incidentally is not very difficult at short focal lengths.


----------

