18-200mm for Landscape Photography?

Anouilh

I'm trying to find information on the best Nikon lens for a person interested in landscape photography. Wide angle is essential, I know from reading here, so I don't know if a zoom that goes up to 200mm is necessary.

Nikon are about to launch a new 18-200mm lens in September:

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3968

Would it be a good choice?

Also, for anybody using other brands, it might be helpful to build up a pool of knowledge on this zoom range, perhaps.

Nforce

Would 18mm be wide enough,though? I'd sooner something along the lines of a Sigma 10-20mm lens or Nikon 12-24mm

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/

Ghost Train

would say 18mm (28mm) is wide enough for your typical landscape photography

Arciphel

The 16-85mm lens is supposed to be a lot sharper than the 18-200, and the extra 2mm at the wide end makes a big difference.

dazftw

It would all depend on the situation no...?

The further you are away from what your photographing a longer lense is better.

The closer you are to what your photographing a wider lense is better.

AnCatDubh

dazftw wrote: »

It would all depend on the situation no...?

The further you are away from what your photographing a longer lense is better.

The closer you are to what your photographing a wider lense is better.

I tend to agree with the sentiment here.

So many potentially good landscape shots are ruined imho with the perspective forced upon the resulting image by the perspective that an ultra wide angle lens will give. I've taken many at my widest shooting focal length of 18mm only to think - "hey, I wasn't that far away from the scene, i was actually in the scene" but if you go out to 18mm or less giving an equivalent of what, 27mm in 35 format, your distance object will appear further away than they are to the human eye. Due to this, imho, shooting in or around 18mm should be reserved for scapes that are not that far away from you but want to use your wide perspective to get as much in there as possible.

Apart from the technical difficulty of taking it, I personally think that you'd be far better to shoot maybe 35 (50mm-ish 35 equiv) or up to 50(75mm-ish 35 equiv) to capture a scene - this, in terms of the realism. If you need a wider canvas - then master panoramic shooting (ok, it's not the same but in the commonly displayed results that we see, you'd be far better).

I could be incredibly wrong in the above - Just an opinion.

dazftw

50mm is as close as you can get to the human eye as well!

alb

dazftw wrote: »

It would all depend on the situation no...?

The further you are away from what your photographing a longer lense is better.

The closer you are to what your photographing a wider lense is better.

I think that most often a great landscape shot is not about photographing a particular 'thing' in the landscape, it's about capturing everything - near, middle and far. For this reason I think the 10-20mm (or 12-24mm) are the best choice. Sometime you'll need to be longer so I'd recommend having another lens that will cover up to 100mm at least.

dazftw wrote: »

50mm is as close as you can get to the human eye as well!

It's not necessary to capture what the human eye sees when photographing a landscape, in fact you get the most dramatic results when you photograph what it can't see.

dazftw

alb wrote: »

I think that most often a great landscape shot is not about photographing a particular 'thing' in the landscape, it's about capturing everything - near, middle and far. For this reason I think the 10-20mm (or 12-24mm) are the best choice. Sometime you'll need to be longer so I'd recommend having another lens that will cover up to 100mm at least.

I never said anything about capturing a certain "thing" I meant capturing everything.. Your not going to take a photo of mountain from a good distance away with a wide angle lens you will get to much then.

alb wrote: »

It's not necessary to capture what the human eye sees when photographing a landscape, in fact you get the most dramatic results when you photograph what it can't see.

Your not going to get that with a wide angle.. it appears further away like!

Like I said it all depends on the situation!

alb

dazftw wrote: »

I never said anything about capturing a certain "thing" I meant capturing everything.. Your not going to take a photo of mountain from a good distance away with a wide angle lens you will get to much then.

I would consider a mountain one thing in the scene if I was that far away, and I would usually still take it with a wide angle, trying to ensure I had something interesting in the foreground also and an interesting sky. All these elements combine to make the shot. I accept that some may want to just capture a mountain even being at a distance to get more in the shot, but in my experience it usually leads to a less interesting shot.

Maybe OP could post/reference some examples of the kinds of landscape shots they would like to get? then we can see how wide they'll need to get.

pete4130

There is no perfect lens for landscapes. This was shot at 200mm on a Nikon 80-200 2.8 lens at either f8 or f11 and some cropping along the bottom because the lens wasn't actually long enough to get the scene in I wanted.



If the situation calls for a wide angle, then use a wide angle, if it needs a 50mm then use that, if it needs a tele lens then use that.

Don't restrict yourself to what you've read on a photography forum!

Anouilh

Thanks for all the helpful comments.

I find landscape photography difficult and tend to focus on some detail rather than opt for a wide panorama. This was taken at 133 mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3370557679/meta/

It is often suggested that the best landscapes are stiched together from a series of photos that pan the scene.


In passing, I've found references to the opinion that wide angle lenses are also good for architectural photography, which is logical.