Is there such a thing as a long zoom lense thats good for landscapes?

Supercell

I've a D70s with a 18-70 lense but its not really suited to big landscape pictures or the zooming into nature close ups of squirrels or deer which live around here but run fast as you approach.

Is there a lense that can do a pretty decent zoom than can take nice landscape shots or am I asking for too much?

Thanks.

quilmore

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (??? may be some 500)
Nikon AF-S 12-24 f4 (aprox 800-1000 euro)
Tokina 12-24 f4 (400)
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 (400)

and that's about it, I can't think of any more
I've listed them in order of performance (acording to own experience and reviews)
I have the tokina 12-24 and I love it, if you want to try it in your camera in Dublin let me know and we can meet

Supercell

Thanks quilmore, I've been reading lots of good things about the Tokina 12-24 which ties in with what you are saying.
I'm strongly leaning towards that on my shopping list

Fenster

Why do people consider ultra-wide angles a must for landscape photography? I've gotten more than satisfactory results with longer focal lengths on occasion.

Eirebear

Fenster wrote: »

Why do people consider ultra-wide angles a must for landscape photography? I've gotten more than satisfactory results with longer focal lengths on occasion.

I agree to an extent, but after really struggling to cope with it for a long time, leading to me eventually ignoring it for a while. Im really beginning to enjoy my Canon 10-22

Supercell

Fenster wrote: »

Why do people consider ultra-wide angles a must for landscape photography? I've gotten more than satisfactory results with longer focal lengths on occasion.

This winter I drove by some awesome landscapes..here's one my point and shoot took (canon s30)..believe me when I say a wide angle would have totally kicked ass that day.

Hugh_C

wow Supercell, where's that?

Supercell

That's Scarr mountain in Wicklow last month.
The view was wet pants gorgeous..red morning sunlight on snow is amazing, but i couldnt capture it the full view on that crappy camera/lens.

Mellor

those wide angle zooms listed above won't be any good for sooming in on squirels

JMcL

Fenster wrote: »

Why do people consider ultra-wide angles a must for landscape photography? I've gotten more than satisfactory results with longer focal lengths on occasion.

I wouldn't say they're a "must", they take a bit of getting used to, and can be hard to use effectively, but they're a very handy knife to have in the block, especially when the crop factor on an APS-C sensor camera is taken into account - 18mm just ain't that wide on one of those.

amcinroy

I find this thread a bit confusing. Supercell talks about a long zoom lens for landscape but it seems to be wideangles that are being discussed. Now unless you are photographing 20 foot squirrles, these lenses won't help you.

This is an area that interests me and I've thought a great deal about.

I have a number of very sharp wide lenses but it has always been the long end that has been problamatic to me. The problem is that the sharpest glass is generally f2.8 prime which is no good to a landscaper. What we really want is a light, moderate aperture, sharp zoom. But such lenses are thin on the ground and we really don't need f2.8

I'm currently making do with a Sigma 70-300mm APO which is by far the weakest lens in my arsenal. I'm using the Pentax system and am waiting on the 60-250mm F4 constant aperture zoom which promises excellent quality and is lightish.

I would also say that my Pentax 70mm DA and Tamron 90mm SP get a fair amount of use for landscapes and it is actually quite rare that I would need anything over 150mm for landscapes. These primes are practically flare free. Perhaps a moderate telephoto prime like this would do you?

Here's one shot at 70mm.



Andy

leinsterman

I have to agree with Fenster ... when you mention Landscape everyone thinks wide ... yes wides are great for landscapes ... but so too are Tele's ... it really depends on what you a looking to achieve in the end result ... and if you ever get into shooting panoramics then tele's are an absolute essential ...

So my advice for the OP is get yourself at least a 70-200 ... if you want to shoot wildlife you'll need more reach again ... I don't know your budget so I'll make no assumptions ... but Sigma do some decent lenses for Nikon I believe (tempered by the fact that I'm more familiar with Canon) ...

I was out during that weird fog last weekend and I came across a scene that would have been completely lost on a wide ... due to its decompression effect ... Instead I opted to shoot at 200mm using a 70-200mm on a 1.3 crop body to compress the scene and give the Poolbeg towers even greater command over the tiny figure in the foreground ... there are no rules to this game except you have to use your imagination... Assuming you have the time it is always a good idea to visualise the final result and critique it in your mind before you press the shutter button. But (and it is rare for me to say this), I was very happy with the result -

jackdaw

Supercell wrote: »

Thanks quilmore, I've been reading lots of good things about the Tokina 12-24 which ties in with what you are saying.
I'm strongly leaning towards that on my shopping list

But don't you want to zoom in close to animals etc ??

24mm is very wide ...

quilmore

I have to admit I didn't see the squirrels thing when I reply to the OP

the answer should be "no, you don't have a lens that is good for wide landscapes and for small animals"
you'd need at least 2 lenses, a super wide angle for the panoramic views and a telephoto zoom

my recomendation is the tokina 12-24 f4 and if money no object a 70-200 2.8 vr (if on a budget get the nikon 70-300 f4-5.6 g for less than 100 euro from HK)

leinsterman

quilmore wrote: »

a super wide angle for the panoramic views

Not that I'm suggesting that quilmore is wrong (he is correct) ... but an alternative for panoramics is to shoot with a telephoto and combine the images at the post processing stage ... good feature for automating this in CS3 ...

Here is an example from a combination of about 10 images all shot at 50mm on a 1.3 crop (I think) ... it is not the world greatest shot but you get the idea -

elven

amcinroy wrote: »

I find this thread a bit confusing. Supercell talks about a long zoom lens for landscape but it seems to be wideangles that are being discussed. Now unless you are photographing 20 foot squirrles, these lenses won't help you.

20 foot squirrels? I'll have nightmares tonight...

I think what the OP means by a long zoom is a big range from widest to longest focal length, rather than long in an extra telephoto way as you'd think of it.

I don't get the thing with landscapes and wide angles myself. Always seems to make everything tiny in the frame. Spose, that's why I'm no colin prior...

Supercell

elven wrote: »

I think what the OP means by a long zoom is a big range from widest to longest focal length, rather than long in an extra telephoto way as you'd think of it.

Yep, thats what I'm looking for.
Some really great replies here - currently deciding how far my credit card needs to be hurt for my pictorial satisfaction (probably a common dilemma here )

Overdraft

amcinroy wrote: »

unless you are photographing 20 foot squirrles, these lenses won't help you

. Like this one?

Fenster

Cracking shot of the stacks, Simon!

soccerc

quilmore wrote: »

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (??? may be some 500)
Nikon AF-S 12-24 f4 (aprox 800-1000 euro)
Tokina 12-24 f4 (400)
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 (400)

and that's about it, I can't think of any more
I've listed them in order of performance (acording to own experience and reviews)
I have the tokina 12-24 and I love it, if you want to try it in your camera in Dublin let me know and we can meet

My new Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is winging itself as I type across the Atlantic from B&H

quilmore

good man John
get the most of you FX! any bargains in BH?

soccerc

quilmore wrote: »

good man John
get the most of you FX! any bargains in BH?

I didn't pick it up personally, a friend was in NY and asked him to pick up a few small things like hoods but all were out of stock.

Had been contemplating a WA and with the D3 plus the reviews of this glass sent him a text asking to get me the 14-24.

Cost him, as he'd been to B&H earlier in the week for his list, but temptation got to him when retuning to get my lens and he purchased himself a D3.

Fenster

Overdraft wrote: »

. Like this one?

Seen it before, but it always tickles me.