What is the sharpest possible landscape lens?

I would like to know what is considered the sharpest landscape lens. Unfortunately the 14-24 doesn't count (for me) because I can't use filters with it and even though I simply asked "what is the sharpest lens" $2000 is a little more than I'd like to spend on a lens (I'm in Canada).

The 17-55 would be the most useful range, and also be wide enough for me, however it is optimized for f2.8-5.6 and actually gets a little worse when stopped down further.

I was thinking the 17-35 or 12-24 would be the best I can do without going for the 14-24. Is one better than the other? 12mm would be plenty wide for me, and I'd be ok with 17mm too because I currently use an 18-50 lens. I am aware of the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24, but if money were no object (excluding the 14-24) which landscape lens is the best?

The rumored 16-85 f3.5-5.6 VR lens is very intriguing, but I doubt it will be as sharp as some of the higher end lenses.

My Sigma 18-50 EX MACRO lens is extremely sharp for macro application and when the subject is fairly close to the lens, but at 18mm even stopped down for landscapes it's pretty average and that Is why I am looking for something else.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions

Mark

If you want the sharpest lens, probably the 105mm 2.8 VR

What is the best landscape lens? Depends on the type of landscapes you take, Wide, Ultra-Wide, Normal, Telephoto?

If you want a good landscape lens, maybe an 85mm 2.8 PC, the 35mm 2.8 PC, 28 3.5 PC?

A straight 28mm 2.8 AIS works well too, as does the 20mm 2.8.

Nothing wrong with the 10-22 as a landscape lens and 18-35 on DX, as well as the pricey 17-35 on FX

--
If you have a moment, check out my site:
http://mcivor.smugmug.com

I have a Tokina 12-24mm, I enjoy the lens, but I imagine that prime lens would be much sharper, especially in infinite focus.

My pictures usually seems to lose sharpness in infinite focus:
http://image55.webshots.com/555/0/13/29/2675013290070406675sDnCHj_fs.jpg

However, it is possible to get rather sharp images in closer focus.

Some sharp images in closer focus:
http://image58.webshots.com/558/2/9/82/2444209820070406675ogscCC_fs.jpg

http://image58.webshots.com/558/0/19/63/2527019630070406675wdkLdB_fs.jpg

For sharpness at infinity and detailed distant shots, you need a lens with very low CA (CA will destoy small details afar by being mushy, harsh and adding stange lateral colouration and even fringes). Proof of that (besides the lack of strange colour fringes) is that the image degrades very gracefully with distance and you can still make out (at 100% display) the details of the distant trees and leaves but not as a results of the camera's auto sharpnenning when it detects a mess. That is to say you get good clean pixels of reasonably blurred pictures which is blurred because of distance (say you have too few pixels to describe a small distant leave on a branch; it is not detailed but looks very natural) and not because it is mushy.

Then you will need a tripod even for seeming sunny situation and good shutter speed. If you want sharpness afar, that means you need it many times better than the norm of 1/focal length seconds.

Use MF and experiment with different F numbers. Each lens is different.

Go for low CA and you will be right.

On focal length, I use 17-300 for landscape. It can definitely be a non wide lens.

The 14-24 is THE landscape lens as far as I'm concerned. I've tried the 12-24 and 17-35. The 17-35 is a great landscape lens on FX, but not that wide on DX. The 12-24 is fine for landscapes stopped down.

But the 14-24 is in a class of it's own. So if you want the sharpest, that's the one. It's unlike any wide I've ever used. Amazing corner to corner, wide to stopped down, zoomed out or zoomed in, it's always sharp and contrasty, very little flair. A world class lens.

you may be correct about the performance of the 17-55 when stopped down, but I would be willing to bet that you will never find a lens that is better when compared in actual prints of any size.

You can worry about what people here might say after pixel peeping at 100 or 200%, but is that actually what you use your camera for?

go look at the review of the 17-55 at thom hogans web site (bythom.com) he has a shot there he took with the 17-55 from a boat in the center of a lake of a mountain range. this is what he says abou this shot:

"Note that while I'm many miles away from the Alaska Range here (I'm actually sitting in a canoe in the middle of Wonder Lake), the lens is holding quite a bit of detail in the snowy slopes (pretty easy to see even at this small size). Indeed, the detail level that's being recorded is lost in the little bit of noise the D70 produces at ISO 200 (i.e., generally I'm camera limited by this lens, not optics limited). If anything, there's a tiny bit of diffraction softness in this image (taken at f/22), but you'd expect that with any lens at that aperture on a digital body."

so even at f/22 the lens is limited by the camera and not the other way around.

so, in a nut shell, if the 17-55 is the most useful range as you say, and if you would never see any difference in any print you would ever make. It would seem to me the choice is clear

It was to me

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

The 17-55 would be the most useful range, and also be wide enough for
me, however it is optimized for f2.8-5.6 and actually gets a little
worse when stopped down further.

Click to expand...

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

Mark

Click to expand...

--
Nikon D80 & D200, 10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 17-55mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2VR, Lensbaby 3G
other assorted BS

I am not interested in telephoto landscapes, but 18mm on a crop body is probably the longest lens I'd be interested in. Perhaps the 20mm prime, but then I'm at 30mm on my camera body. So is there no way at all to get filters on the 14-24? I'm REALLY surprised Nikon would make an obvious landscape lens and remove it's ability to use filters.

Thanks,
Mark

It's an not an obvious landscape lens, it is more of a PJ and architecture lens.
Who needs 2.8 in a landscape lens?

--
If you have a moment, check out my site:
http://mcivor.smugmug.com

What a shame. By excluding the Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, you are excluding what is arguably the new reference standard lens for super wide angles.

Here are some expert reviews:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Rodenstock APO Grandagon.

Mark,

Sounds like you’ve encountered one of the questions of the ages…which lens to buy. Unfortunately it seems that there seldom is clear cut answer when money is a factor. So here’s what advice I can offer you.

I’ve found the Tokina 12-24 to overall be a fine optic. For the price it can’t be beat. The Nikon 12-24 may be a touch sharper, but to me it wasn’t worth $450. It’s sharpest around f/8 or f/11 and not when zoomed all the way to 12mm. It is a real treat using such a wide lens. Since it’s so wide, I’ve been able to get some really slow shutter speed images hand held (occasionally down to 1/4 sec). It does have its limitations, however. Flare is a significant issue with highly contrasting scenes. And you may find the boarders a touch soft when viewed at 100%, but this isn’t as noticeable in print.

I’ve found the Nikon 17-55 a great choice for landscapes. It is quite sharp and is sharpest at f/5.6--best in the f/4-f/8 range. At f/16 and f/22 the sharpness is noticeably less. In most of the landscapes that I have done, I’ve been able to pick a larger aperture to use the lens at its sweet spot.

The Nikon 17-35 is regarded by many to be the sharpest choice and best choice among the current Nikon zoom selection for stopped down landscape work, but I haven’t used it for landscape work and it is also quite expensive.

In the end, the optical qualities of the specific lens you chose will not make as huge difference in the final images as the effort you put into them. For me, I’d rather have an excellent zoom than a superb prime for landscapes. I would recommend picking the one you like the best, has the features that are important to you, and not look back. So try them out in a store, if you can. Filters (mainly the polarizer and the split natural density types) are one of our best tools in producing quality landscape images so I’m curious to see how this issue plays out with the new 14-24.

Hope this helps.
Doug

I ask because that is what should drive your choice. If your only using this lens for web display or prints smaller than about 20 x 30 inches, Nikon's 17-55 or 18-70 DX lenses are perfectly suitable. If you need to make larger images than 20x30 inches, I would suggest taht you look into a larger format camera. The simple fact is that there is a limit to the maximum resolving power of a lens and the DX format is just about at that limit when you try and print it larger than 20x30 inches and retain exacting detail.

BTW, wide angle lenses will look quite soft to many users because they tend to overmagnify the images in a screen peep. The reson for this is simply due to the fact that details are rendered smaller in wide angle images than in telephoto images and we all tend to try and make the area of detail fill the screen. So, instead of using a 50% or 100% peep, we start looking at these images at a 200% or even larger magnification. If your doing this, you need to back off a bit and try having some prints made instead of peeping pixels. Do that and you may find that what you have right now is perfectly suitable. Which may save you a lot of money in the long run if you learn this lesson.

Now, about the larger formats. First there is the FX format or full frame. That can probably get you to about 30x45 inches with excellent fine detail rendition in the print. If you need to go even larger, you can consider a medium format digital like the Mamiya ZD or a Hassleblad, however you won't easily find a superwide equivalent lens for this format. Which means that you may have to consider moving up to a 4x5 inch camera equipped with a scanning back, where you can find some superwide lenses at some rather hefty prices. Adorama is currently listing a 47mm Super Angulon with 120 degrees of coverage on the 4x5 format for 1849.95 and a scanning back can be obtained for as little as 6000 bucks. If you need a setup capable of making stunning 8 x 10 FOOT prints, that's your ticket.

Hi

Thanks for all the info and advice. I currently print to a maximum of 16 x 12 inches and find that the D300 is very adequate for that purpose. I know that the 14-24 nikon will give me 21-36mm which is plenty wide enough for my purposes. My principal concern is that I use ND and polarizers and although I am a qualified Photoshop user I try to take "the perfect image" at the camera to minimise the post processing time. I hate the though also of an unprotected lens using just the hood. You would think somebody would have at least designed a lens cap for the purpose. I can only conclude that as Nikon have made this award winning lens an aweful lot of users must be very happy with not having filter capability and lens cap! I wonder what the lens flare is like and does Nano coating largely overcome this.

It may be I am completely at a tangent with this issue and that Nikon did not produce the 14 - 24 for my landscape at all and it is e.g. for cityscapes, urban and architectural photography. I'm in a quandry now!!
--
richardD300

For my money, the 17-35 is still the best landscape lens out there. It has a very useful range, takes filters and much more resistant to flare than the 14-24. While the 14-24 is better for many purposes, I don't believe it is better for landscape. Not being able to use my Singh Ray variable ND filters as well as the split grad's eliminates it for me. Try getting very long exposures with the 14-24 on a tripod. That said, I eagerly await getting a 14-24 for other purposes, including the occasional landscape where I am not worried about flare and do not need a filter. I've used one to shoot a family gathering and it was fabulous.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

I'd get the Nikkor 14-24 if I were you. You can make your own filter if needed (get a filter and create a "sleeve" for the lens, just like the lens cap and remove when done.)

And if you're considering the 17-55 2.8, then look at the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It'll save the piggy bank.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review

--
Regards,

Scott
http://flickr.com/photos/barl0w

Take a look at the 14-24mm lens cap. There is no reason why you couldn't take a filter, hot glue-gun some "fun foam" (google it), to make a sleeve for your filter, so that the filter sits securely in front of your lens.

I did this for the following project: http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh

Same idea, just use a lens filter. Make sure you blacken out the glue so that light doesn't get in or use black glue-gun sticks. I used "fun foam" instead of cardboard. It provides a nice, snug fit, & won't scratch.

Good luck -



--
Regards,

Scott
http://flickr.com/photos/barl0w

When I used the D2xs as my main camera I had the 12-24 F4 and 17-55 F2.8 Nikkors for landscapes, both were very nice optics. Now that I use the D3, the 17-35 F2.8 and 24-70 F2.8 Nikkors, are the ones I use, the 17-35 in particular, is amazingly sharp.
--
Regards Tony

http://www.llynlight.co.uk

The sharpest landscape lens is the one stopped down to f8 and on a tripod or well braced. I've gotten incredibly sharp landscapes with my 18-55 VR kit lens.

Nikkor PC-E 24mm/3.5D ED

--
http://www.pbase.com/photoclimber
freelancer I

deepsky63 said:

Rodenstock APO Grandagon.

Click to expand...

A reasonable choice, but since this is a Nikon forum, I'll put in a plug for the 120mm f/8 Nikkor-SW used at about f/22 or so. IIRC, the Grandagon's don't have the coverage for 8x10" slides. I'm not very serious about landscapes, so I use a 90mm f/6.8 Caltar II on a 4x5" Wista DX.

Here's a dirty little secret -- at the apertures typically used for landscape photography with a DX format dSLR, attainable sharpness is more limited by camera stability than by lens sharpness.

--
I miss the days when I used to be nostalgic.