Which lens for landscape (Page 2): The first question to answer is whether you will use this lens hand-held or always on a tripod? If hand-held, then you need the VR II version. A...

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

bcbearcatunting wrote:

...I'm thinking about swapping out the 300/f and the 200-500 for a 300 2.8 AF and perhaps a teleconverter or two for those times I really want/need more reach. My question really has to do with what 300 2.8 to get, the slightly older AF II version w/o VR, the slightly newer VR version, or the VR II version and for what reasons. The use would be landscapes, on a D810.

The first question to answer is whether you will use this lens hand-held or always on a tripod? If hand-held, then you need the VR II version. A long, heavy lens needs all the help you can give it to prevent camera shake. If you always use a tripod, then you do not need VR, but should look into the optics of the lenses and determine if that has improved along with the addition of VR and VR II. You want the best you can buy.

bcbearcatunting wrote:

...My focus on a 2.8 was to use TC's for more reach, effectively carrying more reach with nothing more to tote than a small TC. ...I do use wides and ultra-wides mostly for landscapes, waterfalls, etc, but also reach out now and then in other situations. I've found that many times as I await a better sun angle or some movement of clouds, there are other things happening around. Birds or other wildlife. ...I've been spoiled now with really good AF lenses and zooms.
...

Your further description clarifies a lot of what you want to accomplish. You want a lens that will perform well in various lighting situations and give great results, as well as being less to carry. This tells me that the 300mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter would work well for you instead of carrying both of the two other long lenses. Photography is supposed to be fun, and lugging around a lot of heavy equipment can detract from the enjoyment. Being able to concentrate on taking pictures for longer is important, and getting tired lessens focus (!) just like getting hungry can make one grumpy...

Hope I have been of some small help with making up your mind!

Susan

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I use a 1.4X on my 300/4 a lot... no problem. Those are a lot smaller, lighter and easier to tote around and handhold than my 300/2.8!

So you really aren't using the 300mm "for landscape" very much. I was gonna say...

I agree with other responses that f2.8 isn't very often needed for landscape shots. Then again, neither is 300mm! But you appear to be using it for other things.

Doesn't make sense to me to carry both a 200-500/5.6 and a 300/4 with a teleconverter. I'd pick one or the other to carry... leave the other at home or in the car. There are times shooting sports in lower light conditions when I need the extra one or two stops with 300/4 or 300/2.8... so those remain in my kit. But when light is good I do most of my telephoto work with a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (mine is Canon gear... but Nikon shooters have the similar 200-500mm option).

An alternative to a teleconverter would be to get a DX/APS-C camera and use it alongside your FX camera. Better than a teleconverter... no loss of a stop of light. Better than using your FX camera in DX mode... which reduces it to about 15MP instead of 36MP, while a DX model can give you 24MP. The downside is the extra bulk and weight carrying the additional camera body.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

orrie smith wrote:

If you are shooting landscape, why do you need the reach? For landscape, I use between 35mm and 105mm to get as much in the scene as possible. I could see the need for reach if you are shooting wildlife, but if you need a close up of some plants or a specific object, it will not spook if you walk up to it and get as close as you need to.

I agree with this. You'd never use 300mm for landscapes. I use a 16-35mm lens for my landscapes and sometimes use my 24-70mm lens. But 300mm? NOT!

stevebein

Years ago, I met a fellow who was using a 600mmlens for landscapes. It was hillsides covered with California Poppies, the last great bloom was about 2003 or so.
George Lepp used long tele lenses as well as the wides in his book on Poppies of California. I learned something that day. It is the concept within the photographers head as to what he wants to represent. That is a personal decision and not a committee one as in this thread.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

stevebein wrote:

Years ago, I met a fellow who was using a 600mmlens for landscapes. It was hillsides covered with California Poppies, the last great bloom was about 2003 or so.
George Lepp used long tele lenses as well as the wides in his book on Poppies of California. I learned something that day. It is the concept within the photographers head as to what he wants to represent. That is a personal decision and not a committee one as in this thread.

cfbudd Loc: Atlanta, Georgia

bcbearcatunting wrote:

Thank you, everyone, for your interest, input and ... (show quote)

TC's work on the 300 f4.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I notice a number of people questioning the need for long telephotos for landscapes. This year I traveled across country, staying off the interstates as much as possible, I used my long telephoto zoom on numerous occasions, especially in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, when I wanted to capture the mesas and the buttes in the distance. I had 3 cameras in the car with me with my 18-55, 28-75, 70-300 on each of those cameras. I used the 18-55 the majority of the time but was glad to have the 70-300 handy when I wanted/needed it.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

bcbearcatunting wrote:

Years ago I had an old Nikon 300 2.8 AiS that I lo... (show quote)

Get a 14-24mm zoom. 300mm is for the likes of wildlife, sports, and stealth-mode photojournalism. Landscapes need wide angle coverage, not a telephoto.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

burkphoto wrote:

Get a 14-24mm zoom. 300mm is for the likes of wildlife, sports, and stealth-mode photojournalism. Landscapes need wide angle coverage, not a telephoto.

Telephotos can work well for landscapes - especially for the undulating country sides of the American West ! - but hard to justify f2.8 !

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

imagemeister wrote:

Telephotos can work well for landscapes - especially for the undulating country sides of the American West ! - but hard to justify f2.8 !

They can, but it isn't common usage. I used one for a trippy sunset photo of the Badlands of South Dakota back in 1978... I still love that slide. Printed it about 100 times from a high res scan.

A 300mm f/2.8 is great for late afternoon birding, indoor sports, and other such things. Olympus makes a stellar one for M4/3 cameras (effective field of view is 600mm, though, but with the DOF of a 300mm). They also make a dynamite 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro zoom (80-300mm equivalent FOV). Both are tack sharp, among the finest lenses made.

sniper684

The focal length lens you use for landscape shots really depends on what kind of landscapes you are shooting. For the most part I use wide-angles and full frame fisheyes for landscapes. For me, landscapes means great depth of field, and a lot of "near -to-far" scenics. I use hyperfocal distance to ensure that my focus is "on." By this I mean that I use the smallest lens opening available for the proper shutter speed to reduce camera shake. While I recognize the value of tripods to ensure sharpness, moving about in rough country means that tripods are an unneccessary encumbrance, so I principally depend on shutter speed to limit camera shake, following the rule that the shutter speed is "safe" if it corresponds to the focal length of the lens that I'm using. This can be somewhat of a hangup if you fail to realize that when you're not using a full-frame camera your actual focal length is actually greater than the length given on the lens barrel. At any rate, good luck with your scenics.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

As a rule I use focal lengths ranging from 10 -50 mm on my d7200 for landscapes. Occasionally 100mm is useful. Long lenses are for sports, wildlife and occasional photos where perspective compression is desirable. The Nikon 16 - 80mm would be great this application. More humble lenses would be the Nikon 35mm f1.8 and Nikon 50mm f 1.8 and a lens around 16 -18 mm. The Nikon macros from 40 -105mm are not bad either but would need some wide angle capability. If you have a FX camera the 24-120mm lens would be excellent.

bcbearcatunting Loc: Davidson, NC

Again, thank you everyone for your thoughts.