LS Loc: Montana

What do you all recommend for a landscape lens for a Nikon D850 with lowest distortion? I am thinking a zoom in the range of 18-35 or thereabouts. And yes, price is a factor.

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

My favorite is 24-70 2.8 for landscape and its great versality. I also like 14-24 2.8 but the lens is limited more to vista landscape. Too many times I find myself using the lens at 24mm. I started using this summer the 24-120 f\4 for convention, street photography. Like it, but it is not the 24-70. The 2.8's are expensive. Camera - D850. I bought the last two lens from Nikon and Adaroma used and I am very happy.

LS Loc: Montana

Thanks, I'm sure I will need to buy used . . .thanks for the input!

pendennis

I've been using the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 AF-S ED VR for several years, and I'm very pleased with its performance. I still have a desire for the 17-35mm f/2.8, but haven't been able to justify the price differential. I use mine on my D750 and D810 cameras, and I'm just starting to test it out with my Z-5.

It does have distortion at the 16mm end, but it's amazingly sharp. Mine came to me as a used lens from Midwest Photo Exchange. If you don't need the extra stop, this would be a great lens for anyone.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I use a 16~35 Nikkor with my D850 on occasion. Also a 20~35 Nikkor.
--Bob

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Peoples' minds seem to jump to extreme wide angle lenses for landscape photography. This frequently turns out not to be the best strategy. Longer focal lengths are a better choice a surprising percentage of the time. Wider views can be accommodated by stitching panoramas or sometimes just by changing shooting locations.

The first point to understand is that any lens wider than 35mm on a full frame camera is going to introduce some level of distortion...it's the nature of wide angle photography, and the distortion increases as the focal length decreases. Rectilinear lenses will try to preserve straight lines, and fisheyes will try to preserve angles, but there will be distortion. Perspective distortion is a second problem, and isn't lens-related...it comes from where you are standing when you shoot with a wide lens. Edge and corner fall-off (vignetting) are common lens-related problems, especially with lower cost lenses.

I have a 16-35 mm Nikkor that is a pretty decent wide-normal zoom on my DX cameras, but it pretty marginal on my full frame cameras. It evidences all of the problems noted above. These problems pushed me to get a 14-24 mm f/2.8 (primarily for night sky photography), which is a much better lens. I bought mine new, but there are always tons of them available used. It seems that lots of folks think they have to have one until they get it and find out that they really didn't need it at all.

I suggest that you rent or borrow an extreme wide angle and try it out before buying. Make sure you like the effect of really distant backgrounds in your landscapes. Get a feel for the perspective distortion and the strategies necessary to manage it, like locating the horizon on the horizontal midline of your frame. Discover what focal lengths you really use.

My intent here is not to talk you out of wide angle photography. Just make sure that you understand the challenges and tradeoffs before committing a ton of money or compromising on a suboptimal solution.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Two Nikkors --a 24-70 f2.8 and a 20mm prime-- are more than sufficient for 90% of my landscape needs. I've considered at times getting something other (either one of the 16- or 17-35mm Nikkors --more for their sharpness and distortion/flare/etc. control characteristics than for their angle of view) but since the bulk of my landscapes are shot intended as panos and/or focus stacks, using the 'sweetest' center portion of the already extremely sweet 24-70, there's no need for me to go wider when using a full-frame Nikon. (I can go wider if need be, but to do so I'd use either my crop-frame D7200 or my Fuji X-system cameras.) As well, near/far foreground/background element proportions/relationships are far more important (to me) than angle of view usually is, and the two lenses I first mentioned deal with that admirably.

stogieboy Loc: Marlboro, NY

I'm a really big fan of my 14-24, but it is expensive. I mainly use it for night photography to get star trails with something in the foreground, and it works very well for that.

Another option would be to get something like a 35mm or 50mm prime and do panoramic and stitch together in post. I've done that with both of those lenses, and the results are great. Those primes are also way less expensive. Unless you want to get everything in one press of the shutter, it might be worth looking into that as a solution.

LS Loc: Montana

Thank you very much!

LS Loc: Montana

Really excellent points and advice. I really appreciate it, thank you!

LS Loc: Montana

Thanks!

therwol Loc: USA

I see a lot of recommendations for various zoom lenses, and they're all fine lenses. Nikon also makes some outstanding primes in this range, but when you add up the cost of owning all of them to get the range, you'll spend a fortune.

KenProspero

Was in your situation recently.

It came down to the Nikon 16-35 f/4 and the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8.

From what I read, the 16-35 is probably sharper. In my case, I want the lens to double as an astro lens, so I opted for the extra stop and went with the 17-35. Both are available at a reasonable-ish price from the reputable used equipment sellers.

LS Loc: Montana

Thanks! I, too am leaning toward the 16-35.

LS Loc: Montana

Agreed, zoom is the way to go. I have a few great primes, but seldom use them as most of my photography these days are not predictable situations.