Best lens for waterfalls (FX)

[JeffIsMyName]

I live in a location with hundreds of waterfalls nearby and would like to start shooting them. These are hike-in waterfalls that I can get very close to, so I’m thinking something wide angle. I also like to shoot things like cathedral interiors when I travel, so if the lens could do double duty, that would be a bonus. I’m fit and stupid, so I don’t care much about size or weight. Image quality is very important to me.

I’ve been considering the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, and even the Nikon 20mm f/1.8. I’ll consider other options too though.

If a filter solution for the Tamron was easier (or reasonably priced!), I’d probably pick it. If the distortion on the 16-35 wasn’t so bad (for building interiors, etc.) I’d get that. And the 20mm prime may not be versatile enough, but maybe it is? I also have a 35mm prime that I love.

So what do you think, what is my best option?

 

[Wahrsager]

I live in a location with hundreds of waterfalls nearby and would like to start shooting them. These are hike-in waterfalls that I can get very close to, so I’m thinking something wide angle. I also like to shoot things like cathedral interiors when I travel, so if the lens could do double duty, that would be a bonus. I’m fit and stupid, so I don’t care much about size or weight. Image quality is very important to me.

I’ve been considering the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, and even the Nikon 20mm f/1.8. I’ll consider other options too though.

If a filter solution for the Tamron was easier (or reasonably priced!), I’d probably pick it. If the distortion on the 16-35 wasn’t so bad (for building interiors, etc.) I’d get that. And the 20mm prime may not be versatile enough, but maybe it is? I also have a 35mm prime that I love.

So what do you think, what is my best option?

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Sagittarius]

You can also look at Sigma 12-24 Art

 

[breivogel]

I live in a location with hundreds of waterfalls nearby and would like to start shooting them. These are hike-in waterfalls that I can get very close to, so I’m thinking something wide angle. I also like to shoot things like cathedral interiors when I travel, so if the lens could do double duty, that would be a bonus. I’m fit and stupid, so I don’t care much about size or weight. Image quality is very important to me.

I’ve been considering the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, and even the Nikon 20mm f/1.8. I’ll consider other options too though.

If a filter solution for the Tamron was easier (or reasonably priced!), I’d probably pick it. If the distortion on the 16-35 wasn’t so bad (for building interiors, etc.) I’d get that. And the 20mm prime may not be versatile enough, but maybe it is? I also have a 35mm prime that I love.

So what do you think, what is my best option?

Why would you need a filter on the Tamron? A UV not really needed. Maybe a ND for long exposures? Polarizer - not good for landscapes but OK for water? Otherwise it is great.

If you use a Lee filter -at substantial cost - you can cover the filter aspects.

The 20mm is a good compromise, though it does not zoom and does not have VR. It might be OK with waterfalls within field of view available. Filters are cheap.

The Nikon 16-35 has distortion and not all that sharp in corners, but probably OK for waterfalls, and uses regular filters.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

I live in a location with hundreds of waterfalls nearby and would like to start shooting them. These are hike-in waterfalls that I can get very close to, so I’m thinking something wide angle. I also like to shoot things like cathedral interiors when I travel, so if the lens could do double duty, that would be a bonus. I’m fit and stupid, so I don’t care much about size or weight. Image quality is very important to me.

So what do you think, what is my best option?

Much as it distresses me to say it, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM. It covers a great range for these tasks, is fast enough for those indoor shots, and allows the use of only slightly outrageously priced filters.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that of the gear I own, I'd use "Mr. Squeaky," my 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S. But I can't recommend it in good faith. It's an older design, overpriced as a new lens, and subject to autofocus motor issues. Mine has been squeaking along for years now, and I'm hoping that someone produces a legitimate replacement before it dies. I also fear you'd be disappointed in "Image Quality;" by modern standards a test-chart hero it ain't.

 

[anotherMike]

Whenever I'm in Oregon, a 20 and 24 (or these days, 25) prime come along with me, as do polarizer filters in the size required. Shooting waterfalls IMO means keeping a filter on so you can wipe off the spray from the filter in between every few shots. I'm not at all a fan of the big LEE filter type systems for the bulbous front element lenses, and I never thought that much of the image quality from the 16-35/4 zoom on the wide end either. I like the Nikon 20/1.8G a lot - it's my choice at 20mm after trying about everything else out there at the 20/21 range.

-m

 

[JeffIsMyName]

I've decided that there's really only one way to figure this out. Rent them. Maybe all of them. I have the 20mm f/1.8 coming later this week and will run it through the paces for about a week. I'll know for sure just how limiting that may feel. If I like it, I'll probably stop right there. If not, I'll rent one of the others.

Regarding the poster who asked why I'd want filters -- because polarizers are magic with unwanted reflective surfaces.

 

[BasilG]

I've decided that there's really only one way to figure this out. Rent them. Maybe all of them. I have the 20mm f/1.8 coming later this week and will run it through the paces for about a week. I'll know for sure just how limiting that may feel. If I like it, I'll probably stop right there. If not, I'll rent one of the others.

Regarding the poster who asked why I'd want filters -- because polarizers are magic with unwanted reflective surfaces.

The 20/1.8 is a great lens. For waterfalls, I also don't see a reason to skip the 18-35 AF-S G. It's a nice lens, a little wider (and longer ), takes filters, very lightweight for hiking, and image quality is pretty good.

 

[breivogel]

Agree, the 18-35 is something to consider, if VR not a consideration. It does take filters.

As for mist on the lens, I have found that it is rarely an issue, unless it is windy or a very big falls (and in any case that it is, a filter over the lens is not really much help. The best thing to do is cover lens until the last moment, then shoot fast.)

 

[Ryan Mack]

https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_pc_4p0e_ed

I would avoid the 19mm pce or any other lens that can’t take a screw on front filter. You will get a lot of value out of a variable nd when shooting waterfalls. I’d probably try to stick to 77mm front threads if possible.

 

[nicodimus22]

I live in a location with hundreds of waterfalls nearby and would like to start shooting them. These are hike-in waterfalls that I can get very close to, so I’m thinking something wide angle. I also like to shoot things like cathedral interiors when I travel, so if the lens could do double duty, that would be a bonus. I’m fit and stupid, so I don’t care much about size or weight. Image quality is very important to me.

I’ve been considering the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, and even the Nikon 20mm f/1.8. I’ll consider other options too though.

If a filter solution for the Tamron was easier (or reasonably priced!), I’d probably pick it. If the distortion on the 16-35 wasn’t so bad (for building interiors, etc.) I’d get that. And the 20mm prime may not be versatile enough, but maybe it is? I also have a 35mm prime that I love.

So what do you think, what is my best option?

I'm wondering if the 20mm is actually too wide. Of course, it really depends on the land around the waterfall...how close you can get, how much you can back up, and if there are things that get in the way of the shot.

I'm partial to the 24mm f1.8G for landscape, as it usually seems just wide enough for most scenes, and the optical quality is out of this world.

On occasions where I need something wider, I grabbed the cheap but awesome 14mm Rokinon f2.8 as well. It's a manual focus lens, but I can use the focus peaking of the D850 to make it really easy.

--
http://www.naturecratephoto.com
http://www.etsy.com/shop/NatureCratePhoto
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicodimus22/
https://500px.com/naturecratephoto

 

[JeffIsMyName]

I'm wondering if the 20mm is actually too wide. Of course, it really depends on the land around the waterfall...how close you can get, how much you can back up, and if there are things that get in the way of the shot.

I'm partial to the 24mm f1.8G for landscape, as it usually seems just wide enough for most scenes, and the optical quality is out of this world.

On occasions where I need something wider, I grabbed the cheap but awesome 14mm Rokinon f2.8 as well. It's a manual focus lens, but I can use the focus peaking of the D850 to make it really easy.

You may be right. I have the 20mm coming as a rental, and I'll be on the lookout to make sure that it's not too wide for my needs. The 24mm f1.8 is an outstanding alternative.

 

[anotherMike]

I think you'll need both lengths.

I haven't shot the waterfalls near you (I still need to get to Proxy falls some time, but I don't live anywhere near your state), but say up in the gorge (or, sadly, what's left of it after the fire), the 20/1.8G is just about right for Latourelle (the 24/1.8 is a bit too long, and an 18 would probably be better), if that helps scale some things somewhat.

-m

 

[JeffIsMyName]

I think you'll need both lengths.

So you'd recommend the 20/24mm primes over a zoom?

 

[just Tony]

Agree, the 18-35 is something to consider, if VR not a consideration. It does take filters.

As for mist on the lens, I have found that it is rarely an issue, unless it is windy or a very big falls

The 3 words that occur to me: Columbia River Gorge

Spray was a factor for me there on my visit last year. If I'm going to be wiping some glass frequently I'd rather it be on a surface that won't cost me $1K to replace.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

I'm wondering if the 20mm is actually too wide. Of course, it really depends on the land around the waterfall...how close you can get, how much you can back up, and if there are things that get in the way of the shot.

I'm partial to the 24mm f1.8G for landscape, as it usually seems just wide enough for most scenes, and the optical quality is out of this world.

On occasions where I need something wider, I grabbed the cheap but awesome 14mm Rokinon f2.8 as well. It's a manual focus lens, but I can use the focus peaking of the D850 to make it really easy.

You may be right. I have the 20mm coming as a rental, and I'll be on the lookout to make sure that it's not too wide for my needs. The 24mm f1.8 is an outstanding alternative.

I have the 20mm and it's a superb lens but I have trouble framing things properly when I use it; I'm not calibrated for that field of view. I have much less trouble with 24mm and no trouble at all with a 35mm. But that is in no way the lens's fault.

 

[anotherMike]

I would, but that's me. I am a believer that most photographers "see" in specific sets of focal lengths when it comes to wides. Some guys are "28 guys", some are "35 guys". I very much see in groupings of 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm. I'm not worth much wider than about 18-20mm composition wise (I just don't naturally 'see' ultrawide). You might be different, need to figure out for yourself.

I started off with wide zooms (17-35, then 14-24, 16-35, tried 18-35) but ultimately for image quality AND filter reasons, ended up with primes. As LM says below, I am *very* picky with lenses. You might find the 18-35G pretty good for this - if I didn't want to break the bank, needed filters, and didn't need fast aperture, this zoom is actually pretty damned good in the 18-30mm range, a bit less so than at 35. Not prime quality, doesn't quite have the 'bite' and sense of transparency that the very best of the best primes have, but it's good enough for many cases. Something to think about if you don't want to buy or carry a bunch of primes. I'm not a fan of the bulbous front element lenses, which tend to flare poorly and are not ones I want to clean Columbia River Gorge waterfall intensity spray off of their front elements on a regular basis at all.

For the waterfalls I've been to in your state (latourelle, shepperds dell, wahkeena, horsetail, multnomah in the gorge, tokatee and watson down near roseburg), I like the 20/24/35/50 combination. Just going off memory, 20 for Latourelle, 24 for Wahkeena, 20 for Multnomah, 35 for Shepperds, 50 for tokatee, 20 or 24 for watson. Havne't been to the ones up near Sisters nor anything at Silver Falls, so can't speak about anything there. Reilly D, who lives up near the Gorge, might have some more/better insight into this one.

-m

 

[Leonard Migliore]

I think you'll need both lengths.

So you'd recommend the 20/24mm primes over a zoom?

anotherMike is quite critical with respect to lens quality. It would be very rare for him to recommend a zoom. If he does, then you should immediately buy that zoom.

 

[breivogel]

I would, but that's me. I am a believer that most photographers "see" in specific sets of focal lengths when it comes to wides. Some guys are "28 guys", some are "35 guys". I very much see in groupings of 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm. I'm not worth much wider than about 18-20mm composition wise (I just don't naturally 'see' ultrawide). You might be different, need to figure out for yourself.

I started off with wide zooms (17-35, then 14-24, 16-35, tried 18-35) but ultimately for image quality AND filter reasons, ended up with primes. As LM says below, I am *very* picky with lenses. You might find the 18-35G pretty good for this - if I didn't want to break the bank, needed filters, and didn't need fast aperture, this zoom is actually pretty damned good in the 18-30mm range, a bit less so than at 35. Not prime quality, doesn't quite have the 'bite' and sense of transparency that the very best of the best primes have, but it's good enough for many cases. Something to think about if you don't want to buy or carry a bunch of primes. I'm not a fan of the bulbous front element lenses, which tend to flare poorly and are not ones I want to clean Columbia River Gorge waterfall intensity spray off of their front elements on a regular basis at all.

For the waterfalls I've been to in your state (latourelle, shepperds dell, wahkeena, horsetail, multnomah in the gorge, tokatee and watson down near roseburg), I like the 20/24/35/50 combination. Just going off memory, 20 for Latourelle, 24 for Wahkeena, 20 for Multnomah, 35 for Shepperds, 50 for tokatee, 20 or 24 for watson. Havne't been to the ones up near Sisters nor anything at Silver Falls, so can't speak about anything there. Reilly D, who lives up near the Gorge, might have some more/better insight into this one.

-m

Actually, the 18-35 would be a very good choice. To be honest, you probably are going to stop down a lot (if you want long exposures), so not much advantage to f1.8. Here are some of my photos with that lens. I don't know about "bite and transparency", but it looks good to me.


Ponytail Falls, Columbia Gorge.


Ponytail Falls, Columbia Gorge.

 

[Sevan]

Yea I agree with anothermike. Pretty much a 20/24mm combo would work well. I have the 20mm 1.8 and its such a fine glass. I love how light it is, focuses super close, takes filters and has awesome IQ. My friend had the 24mm 1.8 and that sucker was sharp.

I usually carry the 20mm 1.8, Sigma 35mm 1.4/Tamron 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 AF. and 85mm 1.8G. Or if I really feel like wanting to go super light I just carry the 20mm 1.8G and 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 AF (it's darn useful for hiking and I used it for waterfalls, great glass and super cheap!)

However when I go to shoots and I care only about image quality you will not see me without the sigma 14-24 2.8, nikon 20mm 1.8G and Sigma 35mm 1.4 art. Those 3 are my sharpest glass. Every time I take shots with them (especially the damn sigma 14-24), they just have such awesome IQ that I don't care if I am hauling heavy gear (the sigma has a carrying case anyway so its easier to carry). I don't have the filter kit for the sigma 14-24 yet as they haven't started making much filters yet (waiting for wonderpana fotodiox to make the adapter).