I like my landscape cameras to have high performance MF lenses available. Just a terrible job by DPR here.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What's a landscape camera without landscape lenses???
- Thread starter mdcromer
- Start date
I like my landscape cameras to have high performance MF lenses available. Just a terrible job by DPR here.
M
Malling
Guest
That article is really useless, you cannot look at the camera on its own, you need to look at the system, what good is landscape capable camera if it doesn’t offer the necessary lenses. It’s not just the lack of MF, but just as importantly the total lack off ultra wide, astro and telephoto primes. Something that is important for landscape work.
That 2/3 advantage is less important then resolution and many other things.
That 2/3 advantage is less important then resolution and many other things.
Last edited:
I've happily adapted lenses from various manufacturers to my A7R III for several years, and it seems that Nikon Z owners could do the same.
I understand that E-mount lenses like my Loxia 25 and Voigtlander 35 APO and my Leica M-mount Zeiss ZM 85 (which I think are all excellent landscape lenses) can be easily adapted to the Nikon.
Last edited:
Paul Barnard
Senior Member
Quite right. I guess there must be a new generation of Sony users who are now throwing the same rocks that Canon and Nikon users were throwing in the early days of E mount.
AlephNull
Veteran Member
What’s a landscape camera without landscape lenses? A camera? ;-)
You can take landscape shots with standard or telephoto lenses, though.
N
No account anymore
Guest
Could you explain what "landscape lenses" are?
M
Malling
Guest
I don’t think there really is such a thing, but there is certainly lenses designed with that in mind like the Sony 1.8/14.
The problem with Nikon Z is that the don’t have primes wider then 20mm, they lack wide f/1.2-1.4 lenses that can be used for Astro. They lack MF lenses, they lack telephoto primes and longer zoom.
Currently they have the 1.8/20, the 1.8/35 and 50mm the latter two is a perfect length for Panorama. And the 2.8/14-24 for ultrawide too wide shots. However many landscape like to go wider then 20 with primes and faster then 2.8 (astro etc) many also like to use +200mm lenses to seperate subjects. This makes the system not ideal for Landscape.
Nikon is discontinuing lenses at a rapid pace, so the usefulness of the adapter is less great then on paper, on top it adds weight/bulk, so it’s really not great unless you have the lenses already, buying DSLR lenses from new would mean you lose easily 2/3 the value the second you buy it, it’s a bad investment.
The problem with Nikon Z is that the don’t have primes wider then 20mm, they lack wide f/1.2-1.4 lenses that can be used for Astro. They lack MF lenses, they lack telephoto primes and longer zoom.
Currently they have the 1.8/20, the 1.8/35 and 50mm the latter two is a perfect length for Panorama. And the 2.8/14-24 for ultrawide too wide shots. However many landscape like to go wider then 20 with primes and faster then 2.8 (astro etc) many also like to use +200mm lenses to seperate subjects. This makes the system not ideal for Landscape.
Nikon is discontinuing lenses at a rapid pace, so the usefulness of the adapter is less great then on paper, on top it adds weight/bulk, so it’s really not great unless you have the lenses already, buying DSLR lenses from new would mean you lose easily 2/3 the value the second you buy it, it’s a bad investment.
N
No account anymore
Guest
Landscape photographers tak about f:8 or f:11?
There are adapters. And new lenses will for sure be released. Besides that, many don't use wider lenses than 21 mm, due to distortion.
There are lots of lenses on the second hand marked, and from third party makes. So I think most people will do just fine with their Nikon cameras for landscape photography, like we do with or Sony cameras - since any lens can be used for landscape photography.
A Owens
Senior Member
Yes, you are quite right. Z mount is the widest diameter and shortest back flange of all 35mm mirror less systems. So if you are happy with MF all Canon, Sony and L mounts can be readily adapted. And the ISO64 is another tick in the landscape box for Nikon.
It's AF and data read-out/throughput where Nikon seems to have lost their mojo right now.
N
No account anymore
Guest
Don't put too much into the mount diameter until there are brighter lenses than f:0.6 on the marked.
M
Malling
Guest
Yes, but if you want wide and ultra wide from OM then it’s usually 1.2-1.8 if you want the best possible lenses, if you can accept more distortion, less sharpness then it’s 2.5-2.8. It’s a trade off you have to accept. It’s relatively rare you see 3.5-5.6 lenses these days.
Nikon is slow at launching anything, it also to not much use if you need it now.
there has been a bit of a shift towards wider lenses then the 20 recently, as these AF ultra wider has gotten allot better. The distortion can also give some very dramatic images if you know how to use it to your advantage.
Adapters add weight/bulk & price
Yes if you want older second hand. If you want newest technology that doesn’t require an adapter and often to be used manually then it isn’t really an option. Again it doesn’t really change the fact that Nikon Z has poor native lens selection.
I prefer none adapted lenses as it’s less a FAFF, lenses with different mount really require an adapter for every single lens with a different mount or else it’s a massive FAFF to use.
Last edited:
You do know that the vast majority of AF lenses available can be used to MF? Right? There's that little control ring thingy. It's easy to spot on primes although admittedly on zooms it's more confusing as there are two.
And before someone complains that fly by wire is hateful... it may well be but to bemoan the lack of MF lenses when native AF lenses are available, other AF lenses can be adapted and many many MF lenses can be easily adapted seems rather grasping to me.
Landscape lenses? Not your MF lenses, but we’ve got a few "high performance" zooms.
The 14-30 is really good and light like a kit lens, and that’s because the 24-70 kit lens is about the same size. Both lenses are really good actually. That’s just for the lightweight f4 hiking options. If weight is not an issue then the f2.8 counterparts are even better.
But yes the system is missing a native lightweight 70-300 equivalent lens to shoot mountain tops. There’s the relatively new AF-P version though, but we’re waiting for a native version of it to skip the FTZ adapter. Even with that, the 14-30, 24-70, 70-300 kit is still a pretty decent and light kit to carry around when you're chasing landscapes.
And yes we're also missing a fast 14 or 16mm f1.8 for astro, but then again even the 14-24 f2.8 is a pretty good versatile compromise for now.
The 14-30 is really good and light like a kit lens, and that’s because the 24-70 kit lens is about the same size. Both lenses are really good actually. That’s just for the lightweight f4 hiking options. If weight is not an issue then the f2.8 counterparts are even better.
But yes the system is missing a native lightweight 70-300 equivalent lens to shoot mountain tops. There’s the relatively new AF-P version though, but we’re waiting for a native version of it to skip the FTZ adapter. Even with that, the 14-30, 24-70, 70-300 kit is still a pretty decent and light kit to carry around when you're chasing landscapes.
And yes we're also missing a fast 14 or 16mm f1.8 for astro, but then again even the 14-24 f2.8 is a pretty good versatile compromise for now.
Last edited:
A Owens
Senior Member
But I speak only about lens adapting. And then the big diameter body is best.
N
No account anymore
Guest
Can you explain how this is better? I use adapted lenses, and I adapt telescopes with very long focal length with E-mount cameras without issues.
Last edited:
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
The Z system can use any of the F lenses as well. More important, if you think landscape = wide angle lenses, then you really don’t know landscape photography.
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
A7r-series such as A7r III you have (used to own) and A7r IV (that I currently have) are the great landscape cameras. There are so many great choices of E-mount lenses for landscape, prime and zoom. Sony have some fantastic lenses - 12-24 GM, 14 GM, 16-35 GM, 20 G, 24 GM, 35 GM, 50 GM... that are all great choice for landscape. Plus third party lenses from Voigtlander (CV), Loxia/Batis, Sigma and Tamron. You have so many choices.
As for the DPR article, don't think Z7 II is better than A7r IV in landscape but they are very close nevertheless. The difference will be lens choices where you have better option in E-mount than Z mount and Sony has some lenses better than Nikon in landscape, such as 12-24 GM, 14 GM, 35 GM, 50 GM, 135 GM for example, plus third party lenses from Sigma, Voigtlander and Loxia.
Film_enthusiast
Active member
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 41
One thing I particularly like about Nikon is the base ISO of 64. Hope the next α7R V will have lower base ISO.
Regards
Regards
M
Malling
Guest
I cannot see anyone proclaiming that landscape = wide.
You can use allot of different lenses for landscape, basically you can use whatever pleases you. But allot like to use those ultra wide these days. But It really is a matter of taste.
I use ultra wide, 24, 35, 50 and 200 mostly, but I have seen some who almost exclusively uses long telephoto, just like I seen some using almost exclusively wide or even ultra wide.
But it still doesn’t change the fact that Nikon Z still miss those ultra wide for Astro, it misses those long telephoto. Yes you can use adapted lenses, but knowing if you buy new you loose allot of its resale value compared to if it where Z lenses (if you can still get them/discontinued). You also add, another additional piece every time you add a lens, add weight, additional price, because you really should want an adapter for every lens that isn’t Z that you own/ carry with you, or else it’s a complete faff. You can end up loosing AF capabilities etc. you could mention allot of reasons why you would prefer the lenses for the system, using any other lens is a compromise and those compromises can be rather huge. Compromises I personally would never accept, but you are of course free to feel otherwise.
ActionPhotoPassion
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,335
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 924
Well I don't think that it is needed to try to know which one is better than the other for landscape photography.
Nowadays cameras have all the same abilities sensor wise.
If there would be 1 camera to choose for landscape we'd all say in one and same voice: Fuji medium format 100 mpx.
Then in the FF world any recent mirrorless or DSLR will give the same results. Ideally we could agree on a 40+ mpx sensor for the rest it will be exactly the same.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum