Landscape advice

[mingaun]

Hello everyone,

I am not sure how to put this ..... lets say i now have an opportunity to buy either a Sigma 10-20 plus a Nikon 85/1.4 or only one and my lens of my dream the 17-35. I have always love landscape shots and that is what got me into photography. The 85/1.4 comes into the picture because my boy is coming in July but this is not a must lens because i actually already have an 50/1.4.

My main issue is to do with the perspective of a lens like 10-20 cf 17-35. I like very wide angle shots but recently the more i look at them the more i get the sense that there is some distortion to the picture that is a bit unreal. But usually these are the pictures that pop right at you. I still do enjoy them very much though.

with the 17-35, you dont get that 'pop' effect at you much. There is no all encompassing effect but the picture is usually what i sort of see with my eyes and it is 'realistic'. Please dont bash me on this, i know photography is an art and it does not need to be realistic though at times it tries to be.

My head tells me to take the sigma and 85/1.4 which will cover my range of lenses very well but the 17-35 will forever haunt me. Or just get the 17-35 and live knowing that i fulfilled this lust but lost out on the ultra wide angle perspective.

I showed my wife shots from these two sites, one using 10-20 and the other one is the nikkor :
http://www.pbase.com/devonshire/zion (using the nikkor)
http://www.pbase.com/shhe/zion_national_park (sigma)
And she liked the 17-35 better. I actually origianlly liked the sigma series better but now i dont know, maybe i like the nikkor's 'realistic' perspective. Or maybe its just the name 17-35.

I would love to hear comments from all landscape enthusiasts on how wide they like their pictures to be. Which lens view do you all use more. Would 17mm be more than adequate? Please help ... i think i am thinking with my heart more than my head.

Sorry for rambling so much, i am suffering from a severe overdose of LLD epressed

Mark

 

[photomate]

Dont think more about it and go for the 17-35. This is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made. I use it as my standard. This is really the best. Every corner, sharpness, colours, etc everything is just very good. An another lens is not as good as this one. And later on buy a secondhand 85 mm, no problem. But never a sigma. Jusr an example of teh 17-35:

 

[Fred G]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Why not a Sigma?

 

[Luckynp]

Yes, why not a Sigma?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[photomate]

Because I like this kind of discussions:smile:
But serious, a comparison between a nikon 17-35 and a sigma 10-20 is not so fair. This Nikon is better and all the results of testing will agree with me.

You have to compare the sigma 10-20, the tokina 12-24 and the nikon 12-24. That is more fair. In testing the tokina is very good and also the nikon and the sigma is good. What do you expect from a lens and what is it worth.

Luckynp and Fred G made beatiful pictures! And they own a sigma, so it is good for them. I am very proud of my 17-35 and so I say this is the best. Objective testing shows that the 17-35 is a class different and the tokina nikon and sigma are close to each other.

Best advice is go to a shop, mount them all, make a lot of pictures in the store and outside and compare it on your own pc. What you see is what you get and then look in your wallet

 

[dmwphoto]

While I certainly agree the 17-35 is a GREAT Landscape lens

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I can not comment on the Sigma until I get the chance to try one for myself.

 

[polar905]

I have been wanting to get a Sigma 10-20 for a bit now, but have decided to hold off till I get my macro lens first and hope that more of the Sigmas pop up on the used market

 

[mingaun]

I love all those shots and i still cant make up my mind. This is literally causing me sleepless nights. Problem is if i miss the 17-35 now, i probably will never get it anymore. But the ultra wide angle effect of Sigma is very tempting.

 

[TimK]

I would deinitely go for the Nikkor. It is a much better lens and as you say at 17-35 if has less perceptive distortion than the Sigma. If you need wider view you can always stictch a few shots together with software. At around 10mm the details of the far end are usually too small.

I addition, you might upgrade to the D3xx one day, which could be almost full frame!

 

[jryoung1947]

Nice thread. I am an amateur just having some fun. I love about everything and it is hard for me to focus. I have a Nikon 20 f2.8 but did buy a Sigma 10-20. I am happy to accept a bit less quality to go to 10mm. These photos are for me first and the fun of posting second. The 10-20 gives me the ability to take shots impossible at times. This shot is just after dawn on a bridge. In this case I was at 13mm. No going back no going forward. I say buy what pleases you, if that fails then off to the for sale thread. I am sure there are plenty of problems with this shot but I had a heck of a time doing it with my Sigma. I took four NEF shots then merged them as HDR. That way I could get the sun rise and the dark detail.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[dmwphoto]

whoa! that is NICE JR!!

 

[jryoung1947]

whoa! that is NICE JR!!

Now I have to find a relatively cheap 300 2.8 at the other end of the optical spectrum.. LOL that will be a Nikon... I'll bug you at Jim's.

 

[The Clam]

Beautiful shot John. HOW did you do that????

 

[rubendparra]

i think both are complement lenses you can not compare a 17-35 with the 10-20 , in my case i have the 17-35 and found it convenient for my shooting style

the 17-35 is a legend .

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jryoung1947]

Beautiful shot John. HOW did you do that????

Don't want to steal the thread but... First I took a shot with my 50 1.8, gadzeeks it looked good. Then I took a shot with the Sigma at about 19mm it looked good (28 seconds to get the water funky). This was pre-dawn. Then as dawn was breaking I switched to NEF. Took a shot but could not get the exposure balanced. So I did a series -2 to +2 loaded and converted to tiff and did a merge in Photoshop CS. I also tinkered with "shadow/highlight" adjustment once I had the final image. First try...I'll start a thread on it.

 

[Fred G]

I agree with Ruben and a better comparison is the 10-20 with the 12-24. Gorgeous shot, btw!

 

[mingaun]

Thanks for all the comments and pictures. I agree that you cant compare the 10-20 and the 17-35. My main problem is trying to see which lens give me a better 'perspective'. I am hoping those of you whose main interest is landscape can advice me on how 'important' it is to have a lens wider than 17mm. Is it very crucial? I do notice that most of my shots with the 18-200 was at 18mm.

 

[MParker]

The 17-35 is a fine lens but if you want very wide and little distortion, the widest lens with the best rectilinearity I know about is the Sigma EX 12-24. If you could find it in your budget to get both you'd have a great set of landscape lenses you might never want to replace.

 

[tasnim_fahim]

Wide angle on digital..nikon 17-35..one of the best nikon zooms. u can't
go wrong with this one except for a rare bad sample.

i do not use ultra wides, though i have the nikon 12-24 and wish i did not.

best

 

[wbeem]

Some mentioned the Tokina 12-24, but I don't recall seeing a photo from one here. In the interest of completeness (or just because I saw an opportunity to post an example), here's a shot from the Tokina 12-24:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)