Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8G ED Lens for Landscape Photography: I am considering buying Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8 lens for landscape photography ( my most interest). My camera is Nikon D800e . I...

pchoudhury Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

I am considering buying Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8 lens for landscape photography ( my most interest). My camera is Nikon D800e . I will appreciate very much any of my fellow UUH members can share their experience with the pros and cons of this lens. I am looking forward to hear your expertise opinion.

Leitz Loc: Solms

pchoudhury wrote:

I am considering buying Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8 lens for landscape photography ( my most interest). My camera is Nikon D800e . I will appreciate very much any of my fellow UUH members can share their experience with the pros and cons of this lens. I am looking forward to hear your expertise opinion.

This is an outstanding lens, of course, but I would question why you want f/1.8 for landscapes?

Edit: Here is a good article on the use of ultra-wide angle lenses:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

RGH

pchoudhury wrote:

I am considering buying Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8 lens for landscape photography ( my most interest). My camera is Nikon D800e . I will appreciate very much any of my fellow UUH members can share their experience with the pros and cons of this lens. I am looking forward to hear your expertise opinion.

You should look at the 16-35mm. Fantastic lens, sharp and great for landscape photography. I love mine.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

RGH wrote:

You should look at the 16-35mm. Fantastic lens, sharp and great for landscape photography. I love mine.

The 16-35 is an excellent lens but the 14-24 F2.8 is better and a little faster. I love mine.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Leitz wrote:

This is an outstanding lens, of course, but I would question why you want f/1.8 for landscapes?

Edit: Here is a good article on the use of ultra-wide angle lenses:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

Most likely for the same reasons anyone wants it.
Flexibility.
Low light shooting and narrow depth of field shots.
If you have it, you can use it.
If you don't have it, you can't.
Those things apply just as much as in landscape as anywhere.

20mm F/1.8 - in focus from 13 feet to infinity, and 20 times faster shutter speed than at F/8.
Turns a 1 second shot into 1/20th sec.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

lighthouse wrote:

20mm F/1.8 - in focus from 13 feet to infinity, and 20 times faster shutter speed than at F/8.
Turns a 1 second shot into 1/20th sec.

'Typically', shutter speed is very close to irrelevant in landscape/archetectural photography assuming you are using a tripod..... You ARE using a tripod aren't you? :shock:

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

mrjcall wrote:

'Typically', shutter speed is very close to irrelevant in landscape/archetectural photography assuming you are using a tripod..... You ARE using a tripod aren't you? :shock:

On the contrary, shutter speed is not close to irrelevant.
Sometimes it is less important than at other times, but that is not the same as very close to irrelevant.
Low light situations, moving grass and trees blowing in the wind, blowing the tripod, falling moving water, waves, falling snow, falling rain, ripples on a pond, moving clouds, moving people/animals/fish/birds/insects in the landscape.
You ARE familiar with these situations aren't you? :shock:

And you ignored that I mentioned shallow depth of field shots. :roll:

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

lighthouse wrote:

On the contrary, shutter speed is not close to irr... (show quote)

You apparently missed that I started with the term 'typically', eh? There are always exceptions to every situation.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

mrjcall wrote:

You apparently missed that I started with the term 'typically', eh? There are always exceptions to every situation.

If you are going to cop out with a watering down of your statement in a wishy washy way like that, why did you attempt to belittle me in the first place with your tripod comment and the goobly eyes?
Either stand by your convictions and defend them, or don't make a noise about them at all.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

lighthouse wrote:

If you are going to cop out with a watering down of your statement in a wishy washy way like that, why did you attempt to belittle me in the first place with your tripod comment and the goobly eyes?
Either stand by your convictions and defend them, or don't make a noise about them at all.

Peace Brother! It's all good!! A little tongue in cheek humor from time to time is all.... 8-)

pchoudhury Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

Thanks for the feedback . There were situations where I felt a fast lens in low light would have been great. Such inside a church .

pchoudhury Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

I am also seriously considering 16-35 mm lens. Regarding 14-24 mm lens , first is very expensive and second it is not suitable if you want to use filters.

pchoudhury Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

I do use Tripod, but there are situations where using a tripod is not a viable option. Thanks for the feedback. By the way, I am also in the lookout out for 16-35 mm lens.
Cheers
Pinak

pchoudhury Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

I do use Tripod, but there are situations where using a tripod is not a viable option. Thanks for the feedback. By the way, I am also in the lookout out for 16-35 mm lens.
Cheers
Pinak

pchoudhury Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

I do use Tripod, but there are situations where using a tripod is not a viable option. Thanks for the feedback. By the way, I am also in the lookout out for 16-35 mm lens.
Cheers
Pinak