Guidenet
Forum Pro
My friend, those are absolutely beautiful, especially that first one. Thank you for sharing.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Primes for landscapes or not?
- Thread starter Paul JN
- Start date
Paul JN
Leading Member
MartynD2oo
Senior Member
24mm 1.4G by far.
Although I use which ever lens gets the job done...
14-24
24 1.4
70-200 2.8vr2
--
Martyn
Please LIKE my page
)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Martyn-Wilkes-Photography/134057003306205
Although I use which ever lens gets the job done...
14-24
24 1.4
70-200 2.8vr2
--
Martyn
Please LIKE my page
)http://www.facebook.com/pages/Martyn-Wilkes-Photography/134057003306205
Last edited:
I disagree. I have an extensive collection of primes, but on a tripod at f/8 all lenses are sharp.
Also, resolution IS important in landscapes and cropping detracts from resolution. Finally, "zoom with your feet" is often impractical when you're at a cliff, riverbank, you are searching for foreground interest and want to maintain a certain perspective between foreground and background etc.
Also, resolution IS important in landscapes and cropping detracts from resolution. Finally, "zoom with your feet" is often impractical when you're at a cliff, riverbank, you are searching for foreground interest and want to maintain a certain perspective between foreground and background etc.
Guidenet
Forum Pro
Wow, love all three, but this one is amazing to me. Very nice.
--
Martyn
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.
I use both zoom and prime for landscape application but I prefer my primes and use my prime lens a lot more than my zoom, especially when I am shooting Milkyway and night sky, the best prime still have the edge over the best zoom in the image quality department even stop down.
I use the same two lenses for most of my work, with the 16-35 f4 being the workhorse. I love the flexibility of zooms, but also use the 20mm 2.8 and the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for night photography. I have several primes, though they generally are left in the bag. It's a matter of figuring out your type of shooting and using what gives you the most flexibility with good IQ...
calson
Forum Pro
I could see the difference between the 16-35mm f4 and the 14-24mm f2.8 lens IQ on my D3 camera with its 12MP sensor. No doubt the difference would be even more with the D8xx cameras.
For a standard prime lens I would be going with Zeiss lenses in 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 85mm focal lengths. My first choice would probably be the 28mm focal length for landscape photography followed by the 85mm.
But for the cost of the Zeiss lenses I prefer the Nikon PC-E prime lenses which provide more versatility for landscape photography than a standard prime lens. With three shifts the 45mm provides the field of view of a 24mm prime but with everything in focus from near to far and lens DOF is not a factor.
If you are going to primes to get maximum IQ then go with the Nikon PC-E lenses.
For a standard prime lens I would be going with Zeiss lenses in 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 85mm focal lengths. My first choice would probably be the 28mm focal length for landscape photography followed by the 85mm.
But for the cost of the Zeiss lenses I prefer the Nikon PC-E prime lenses which provide more versatility for landscape photography than a standard prime lens. With three shifts the 45mm provides the field of view of a 24mm prime but with everything in focus from near to far and lens DOF is not a factor.
If you are going to primes to get maximum IQ then go with the Nikon PC-E lenses.
travelinbri_74
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,541
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,776
This is a question I ask myself constantly - and very curious to hear the thoughts of others. I enjoy shooting with primes more, but when trekking - which is where I do lot of my landscape photography - a zoom just makes more sense. However, if I could justify a large difference in IQ at small apertures, I could likely limit myself to primes whole trekking also. It's just a. IQ difference I don't think is truly there (thinking f8-f16)
TBri
TBri
Paul JN
Leading Member
I've just looked at the imatest charts at photography life and surprused by the results
- https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4/4
- https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr/4
- Nikon 24-120mm at 35mm/f8 corner = 2518
- Sigma 35mm at f8 corner = 1961
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Craig wrote:
'Remember, you can't Xerox a slice of life.'
That will be my new motto!
'Remember, you can't Xerox a slice of life.'
That will be my new motto!
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
24mm 1.4G by far.
Although I use which ever lens gets the job done...
14-24
24 1.4
70-200 2.8vr2
I loved these shots, Martyn!
Unusual, moody, just great!
--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user
No, you're not missing anything, although slanted-edge test results do vary from one tester to another. The 24-120mm is very good at 35mm and 50mm at f/8. And the slanted-edge tests do not perfectly predict infinity performance. The Sigma Art 35mm has some curvature of field at infinity and needs f/8 for sure.
Lots of people don't like zooms. That's why the community settled on the honorific "prime" to describe a single-focal-length lens.
Lots of people like to use lenses wide open.
Lots of people don't like zooms. That's why the community settled on the honorific "prime" to describe a single-focal-length lens.
Lots of people like to use lenses wide open.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Those results don't even begin to correlate with other test sites or reality. I think he (the site) changed test methodology (perhaps it was on another body, or was with sharpening when one was without sharpenting, something like that) (or something else) and never updated his old information. It is exceedingly dangerous to base decisions from one and only one site or reviewer for this very reason.
Plus, remember this clearly: all test charts are shot in the closer ranges, not at landscape distances. ALL test chart sites are thus not as useful for determining performance at landscape distances.
That being said, the Sigma is known to be amazing in the close range, so something is wrong with his test. Look at photozones tests on the D3X and you'll see the difference that makes more sense:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx?start=1
(This is just one example; you can search through DXO, lenstip and the rest and you'll see the consensus is pretty obvious: the Sigma 35 art is the sharpest of the bunch at the test chart distances. (photographylife is a pretty cool site, but frankly his testing methodology isn't as mature or as well thought out as others who have been doing it longer and better - I'd ignore his lens test measurements and concentrate more on his usually very good subjective comments)
-m
Plus, remember this clearly: all test charts are shot in the closer ranges, not at landscape distances. ALL test chart sites are thus not as useful for determining performance at landscape distances.
That being said, the Sigma is known to be amazing in the close range, so something is wrong with his test. Look at photozones tests on the D3X and you'll see the difference that makes more sense:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx?start=1
(This is just one example; you can search through DXO, lenstip and the rest and you'll see the consensus is pretty obvious: the Sigma 35 art is the sharpest of the bunch at the test chart distances. (photographylife is a pretty cool site, but frankly his testing methodology isn't as mature or as well thought out as others who have been doing it longer and better - I'd ignore his lens test measurements and concentrate more on his usually very good subjective comments)
-m
Last edited:
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Nope. There is an error in the photography life test. When one set of results contradicts the vast consensus of both other subjective reviews AND other test sites, one has to question the test.
As for field curvature, it's going to be present in most every wide angle lens. Saying the Sigma 35/1.4 has field curvature is a "duh" statement, because all wide angles do. Actually the Sigma has a bit less than the others, and certainly less than a zoom lens, but the key is to (through shooting) know where the field curvature sits so one doesn't get burned by expecting one zone to be sharp when it's not.
As for the Sigma 35/1.4 Art in landscape, it most certainly can be used at less than F/8 with good results at infinity.
-m
As for field curvature, it's going to be present in most every wide angle lens. Saying the Sigma 35/1.4 has field curvature is a "duh" statement, because all wide angles do. Actually the Sigma has a bit less than the others, and certainly less than a zoom lens, but the key is to (through shooting) know where the field curvature sits so one doesn't get burned by expecting one zone to be sharp when it's not.
As for the Sigma 35/1.4 Art in landscape, it most certainly can be used at less than F/8 with good results at infinity.
-m
I don't think you are missing anything, but they probably are, but I don't have numbers like them to show, as the owner of Sigma and previously shot with the 24-120, my personal experience is the 35mm is much better at all aperture and I don't find any more field curvature on this particular Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens than anything else in this same focal length, i would probably say it actually has less, that's why is one of my favorite landscape lens.
Last edited:
I would think that you could get somewhat better image quality by going the prime route (at least at some focal lengths). However, in my opinion, primes are really cumbersome for landscapes - at least if your photography involves long trips and spending time in the backcountry. Rough weather often makes for great photos, but it will also blow stuff into your camera and onto your sensor if you are switching lenses a lot. And on long trips, this might cause you to lose photos because you (a) choose not to change lenses in some situations or (b) because your sensor accumulates so much dust that it becomes a real issue... Just MHO.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Non-water-resistant lenses, non-internally focusing, like most zooms, are great dust suckers. My 80-400 VR II was like that, my 30-110 is like that, and so on.
So I avoid most zooms, as well as I avoid changing lenses in the field. Works for me!
The 70-200/4.0G is both internally focusing, and internally zooming, a great design!
Guidenet
Forum Pro
Sometimes, but I'm not sure that's the point Tord was making. Maybe, but these things are tools you know. They aren't meant to be babied. A little dust on the sensor is a minor maintenance issue and should be handled that way. Worrying about dust in the field such that one might not use the preferable optic for the job or avoid the shot altogether would be a ludicrous way to go about photography, in my opinion.
At tourist locations, and I live in one, I often see novice photographers so carefully changing a lens under some coat or something, worrying about dust. I also see them with their Lenspens and solutions rubbing away on their lens fronts and cleaning filters, somehow ruminating over something inadvertently touching the glass. If it wasn't so pitiful it would be amusing.
Change lenses when you need to change them. Just use a normal and reasonable approach to keeping dust out, without too much worrying about it. Don't over-clean your lenses until the need is obvious, maybe every few months or so if you use them heavily. Put sensor cleaning on some kind of maintenance schedule and either learn how to do it or pay someone else. Own a real Giottos Rocket Blower.
I rotate four professional grade Nikon bodies to be sent around once per year to a Nikon service center where they clean and calibrate that body as well as update any firmware needed. It takes a week or so under NPS. I get back a nice clean almost new looking camera with a pristine sensor and a list of all what else might have been done and the cost is very cheap considering my heavy usage. I consider it a cost to do business just like my studio rent factor. Now that I'm retired, I'll probably move it to a much longer schedule. It's still just a cost to do photography.
Most of the time, you can't see dust on the sensor. To check for dust requires a photo which is not really normal like aiming at the sky at f/22 or something. The few times you can see it in a normal shot, I can think of nothing easier to blot out with a healing brush, clone stamp or something similar.
The point is that if you miss one shot at any time because you were concerned over dust getting on the sensor, then shame on you. That's not photography. It indeed might be the sign of obsessive compulsive behavior.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum