Landscape lens for D600

[Light Machinery]

All three lenses are equally sharp in the centre wide open. What differentiates them are the sharpness from centre to the edges of the frame when they are stopped down to their optimum aperture for landscape type shots. I have used all three lenses and kept the 14-24mm

In this respect, the 14-24mm f/2.8 leads the pack followed by the 16-35 f/4 VR and lastly the 17-35mm f/2.8. With due respect to the 17-35mm f/2.8 it is still a very capable lens and still hold its own when used for event photography due to the wider aperture of f/2.8, many event photographers still uses the 17-35mm f/2.8 compared to the 16-35m f/4 when they needed the faster shutter speed.

The new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G is also very capable. Image quality is quite close to the 16-35mm f/4 VR.

As a departing note. Have you looked at the older manual focus AIS wide angle primes?

 

[daredevil123]

Actually I find the 16-35 slightly sharper than 14-24 at the center both wide open. Then again, the 14-24 is a F2.8 lens. Stopping down to F4 the 14-24 will be come as sharp if not sharper.

In the end it all comes down to how you are going to use the UWA, and that will determine which is a better lens to you.

For some where IQ is top priority, a 14-24 might be the one to go for. Let me share my personal choice and why I chose it. I use my UWA very often for environmental portraits as well as documentary stuff in tight spaces. This means I have to work with low light from time to time. So VR comes in handy. And when shooting human subjects, having a 35mm on the long end gives me a lot more flexibility than 24mm which is still quite wide. On top of that the 1635 also gives me the ability to attach filter systems easily. When I do need 14mm for landscapes, I have a 14mm MF lens for that. So for my needs 16-35 is the best fit.

BTW, if you really want sharp, take a look at the Samyang 14mm.

 

[gymak90]

thanks everyone! Well it really sounds like a toss up here. You get superior edge-to-edge sharpness with 14-24, versus a bit more versatility with 16-35. For those who found 14-24 to be sharper than 16-35, can I ask how much to stop down the 16-35 to get closest IQ to 14-24?

Personally, I travel quite a fair bit to get my landscape shots; going to beaches, caves, climbing mountains etc. While weight isn't really an issue, space in the bag might be. And I think having ring filters may help save some setup time. I think I should take a look at the Lee filter system.

When I do need 14mm for landscapes, I have a 14mm MF lens for that.

Is that MF lens the Samyang 14mm? That Samyang doesn't take ring filters though.

As a departing note. Have you looked at the older manual focus AIS wide angle primes?

No I haven't. Is there any you could recommend?

 

[richardlim31]

All three lenses are equally sharp in the centre wide open. What differentiates them are the sharpness from centre to the edges of the frame when they are stopped down to their optimum aperture for landscape type shots. I have used all three lenses and kept the 14-24mm

In this respect, the 14-24mm f/2.8 leads the pack followed by the 16-35 f/4 VR and lastly the 17-35mm f/2.8. With due respect to the 17-35mm f/2.8 it is still a very capable lens and still hold its own when used for event photography due to the wider aperture of f/2.8, many event photographers still uses the 17-35mm f/2.8 compared to the 16-35m f/4 when they needed the faster shutter speed.

The new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G is also very capable. Image quality is quite close to the 16-35mm f/4 VR.

As a departing note. Have you looked at the older manual focus AIS wide angle primes?

yes in fact review base on DXOmark put the 18-35mm at par with 14-24 in term of sharpness which has a score of 17P-Mpix whereas the 16-35 score only 14P-Mpix

 

[Cheesecake]

thanks everyone! Well it really sounds like a toss up here. You get superior edge-to-edge sharpness with 14-24, versus a bit more versatility with 16-35. For those who found 14-24 to be sharper than 16-35, can I ask how much to stop down the 16-35 to get closest IQ to 14-24?

Personally, I travel quite a fair bit to get my landscape shots; going to beaches, caves, climbing mountains etc. While weight isn't really an issue, space in the bag might be. And I think having ring filters may help save some setup time. I think I should take a look at the Lee filter system.


Is that MF lens the Samyang 14mm? That Samyang doesn't take ring filters though.


No I haven't. Is there any you could recommend?

You SHOULD take a look at the Lee Filter system, since u're into landscape.

filters you should have in your bag are Big Stopper, GNDs, NDs etc.


just take into consideration that a filter system for 14-24 could be very expensive, at least more expensive than it is for the 16-35VR.


16-35VR is my choice as it is versatile (VR)and more affordable. the ability to accept ring filter might tilt the balance for some but as for me, it was the one for back then there isn't a 10stop filter big enough for the 14-24.

now that they have released them (Lucroit system) it might be an interesting proposition to revisit again.


however, i'm very pleased with the 16-35VR. what a fantastic lens!



Lucroit system has filter system for Samyang 14mm and even for the Sigma 12-24.

 

[daredevil123]

Is that MF lens the Samyang 14mm? That Samyang doesn't take ring filters though.

No it doesn't. I shoot bare. Many ways around it, bracketing, black card are among some of the popular options.

 

[Light Machinery]

The AIS wide angle lenses are 20mm f/2.8 AIS 24mm f/2 AIS, 28mm f/2 AIS, 35mm f/1.4. They used to be relatively affordable and easily available a few years ago as most users have switched over to AF lenses. Optically they are very good. Small size & light weight.

I use the 20mm AIS and 24mm AIS when I need to travel light and be discrete.

 

[r0n1n]

The 14-24 may have the advantage of having a constant 2.8 aperture, but this isn't really much required when taking landscapes since most will stop down anyway to f8-f11 IMHO.

 

[DinoSG]

I used 16-35mm f4..good lens. You should get it....btw..what are the recommended good filters I can used for this len for landscape? heard about lee and big stopper..

You SHOULD take a look at the Lee Filter system, since u're into landscape.

filters you should have in your bag are Big Stopper, GNDs, NDs etc.


just take into consideration that a filter system for 14-24 could be very expensive, at least more expensive than it is for the 16-35VR.


16-35VR is my choice as it is versatile (VR)and more affordable. the ability to accept ring filter might tilt the balance for some but as for me, it was the one for back then there isn't a 10stop filter big enough for the 14-24.

now that they have released them (Lucroit system) it might be an interesting proposition to revisit again.


however, i'm very pleased with the 16-35VR. what a fantastic lens!



Lucroit system has filter system for Samyang 14mm and even for the Sigma 12-24.

 

[Airekris]

I used 16-35mm f4..good lens. You should get it....btw..what are the recommended good filters I can used for this len for landscape? heard about lee and big stopper..

Lee filters are good... BUT DAMN EXPENSIVE....try purchasing the lee system on BnS thread.. more worth it.

 

[Cheesecake]

I used 16-35mm f4..good lens. You should get it....btw..what are the recommended good filters I can used for this len for landscape? heard about lee and big stopper..

depending on your own landscape photography style, Big Stopper could be essential. to me at least but again, to each his/her own.

you might want to research and read up more on the Big Stopper and the likes of such filters (10 stop filters) before you commit.


in the same context, you might want to consider getting a few Neutral Density filters of various range/strength/intensity and maybe some Gradual Neutral Density filters. Maybe, some colour filters depending on your interest.

cheers and have fun with landscape photography!

 

[Cheesecake]

Lee filters are good... BUT DAMN EXPENSIVE....try purchasing the lee system on BnS thread.. more worth it.

few and far in between.

i heard of 3rd party brands from China. not sure what the brand name is nor how the results are like.

the wonders of China!

 

[undergrd]

few and far in between.

i heard of 3rd party brands from China. not sure what the brand name is nor how the results are like.

the wonders of China!

Haida filters. Think there is a review thread on this.

 

[Cheesecake]

Haida filters. Think there is a review thread on this.

thanks for sharing.

 

[Kit]

Truthfully, landscape photography is one of the genre which demands the least from a lens. Most contemporary lenses, when stopped down will give you decent to good results, even kit lenses.

 

[enenyi]

Any advice on shooting landscapes with Sigma 12-24mm II f4.5-5.6 on D600 at f/8? Thinking of buying a 12-24mm lens to shoot at 16-18mm coz my 24-85mm VR is just not wide enough sometimes.

 

[nitewalk]

Haida filters. Think there is a review thread on this.

The slot in ND filters are damn good. Negligible cast even on the 6 stop for which the hitech version was just unusable.

 

[Luminare]

IMHO, if f/2.8 is not required, go for the 16-35mm f/4 VR

The pursuit for sharpness at the level of the 16-35mm f/4 VR or 14-24mm f/2.8G is pretty much transparent to the naked eye. But there are characteristics of the 14-24mm f/2.8G that are unique to the lens. One thing is for sure is that I enjoyed the reproduction of color, micro contrast and distortion it produces.

Yupz, I enjoyed the distortion of the lens so much so that most of my photos taken with the 14-24mm f/2.8G are not distortion corrected.

Taken with the 14-24mm f/2.8G