Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's a valid question, and unlike other subject matter, edges and corners that are consistent in quality with the center of the image is important to good landscape photography. The differences between edges and center can be, and usually are, substantial. And again, for landscape, resolution is important - though not at all necessary for photojournalism.

However, if you could post a few of your best landscape images shot with the 10-20, I'd love to see them.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Your right about edge sharpness. Folks here who profess concern about all things including edge sharpness are USUALLY (not always) the guys who couldn't deliver an award winning photo if one walked in front of them. They can TALK, but can't WALK. Again, not all, but MOST of them. So, don't worry about them.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Newspaper work, as Najataagihe mentioned (I’ve worked for two in my career), doesn’t require much sharpness at all, but when doing landscapes, or shooting an artist’s work as I have, you want the best tool you can get.
Using a lens designed for a DX camera on a full-frame is probably selling yourself short.

That being said, I do like softer lenses sometimes, just got a Russian Helios lens to play with. Not real sharp but fun bokeh.
It all depends on what you’re shooting.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The importance of edge sharpness depends on what you are doing. Night sky photography is capturing images which are points. Edge sharpness matters.
Creating stitched images causes what started at the edges or in the corners to move to the "meat" of the image. Edge sharpness matters.

Additionally, I have one lens, the Nikkor 18-35mm variable aperture, that is so weak in the corners and at the edges that it distracts significantly from architectural images and landscapes in which a lot of detail falls in those areas. So any statement that edge sharpness doesn't matter has to be measured against what the lens is being used for. It cannot be made as a general statement intended to be true in every case.

I will be glad to sell my 18-35mm to anyone who really believes that. But the price will be $950, since its weaknesses don't matter.

Najataagihe

Thank you for the useful reply!

I have always shot to document.

Thus, my ignorance about landscape photography's peculiars.


I would be happy to post "a few of my best landscape images" shot with the 10-20mm lens, but I don't know if I even HAVE any!

The few "landscape" shots I have taken were, mostly, with a 55-200mm zoom.

There was just too much to see to try to get it all in one photo.


That may be a result of documenting in a low-resolution format that has to have the subject large enough in the frame to be discernible.

Detail is lost by the format, so resolution is never high enough to put much in the frame.


The "get everything" photos (by anybody, not just me) I see as overall shape and form.

I have to really "get into" a picture to notice the details of what's in it.

It's all a matter of scale, I think.


I need to go over and peruse the Landscape Photography forum and see what all the enthusiasm is about.

Thanks, again!

William Royer Loc: Kansas

FWIW, when I had the D810
and precious FF Nikons, over time I had picked up the Nikon 14-24, 17-35 and 20mm 1.8. The 14-24 was, by far, the lens I used the least of the three. Great lens. But: quite large - takes up a lot of precious space in bag; wide - yes, but somewhat limited range (at least for my uses); can not take normal filters (eg polarizing); bulbous front element protrudes to the degree one must be careful not to bang it on anything. Overall, I’m practice a somewhat specialized lens. I used the 17-35 much more. And, the 20mm is a wonderful lens in a nice size with a very widely usable focal length and a good price. Just my $0.02.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Ah, so, this explains a lot.

Take a look at my Pano Fickr album - you'll a bunch of images that were taken with longer lenses and stitched.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/albums/72157687713807602

dgingerich Loc: Cape Coral, FL

I love my Nikon 14-24 wide angle lens I use on my D750. It's my "money" lens in that I've sold more images from that one lens than all my other lens put together. But I'm primarily a naturescape photographer. And in using it, I almost always anchor my images with a close-up object to draw people into the mid-part of the photo on to the main subject. If you don't make good use of it's incredible ability to be sharp as close as a foot or less all the way into infinity, then you aren't taking advantage of the capabilities of this lens. It's also one of the best astrophotography lens out there. Being a 2.8 aperture, it is great for Milky Way shooting. But, you have to determine if you shoot the kind of landscapes that require this lens because it is pricey. I bought a refurbished one from Nikon while it was on a 15% off sale so it was more reasonable and I've been very happy with. It is sharp edge to edge, top notch in every way. If you use filters, you will need a special custom filter holder because screw-on filters don't work with the bulging glass on front. I use a NISI system and that works great but that adds additional cost to owning the lens. So like anything else in life, count the cost first. I've attached a couple shots from the Nikon 14-24 and my Nikon D750.

Cayo Costa Collection


Bridge to Heaven

stogieboy Loc: Marlboro, NY

You're irritated that people don't read the entire post before replying, then you list 2 lenses that are NOT zoom lenses, and you recommend a zoom that is almost $300 over the OP's price range...

Maybe take your own advice before harping on others.

To the OP, sure the 14-24 is a beautiful lens, but it is likely not something you'd use very often. I bought this lens after a night photography workshop at Bannerman Castle, and I'm really glad I have it, but truth be told, it may be my least-used lens (next to a LensBaby that I bought on the cheap).

The fact is, you are getting a lot of recommendations for lenses that don't fit your criteria. There is always the used market, and purchasing from a reputable source online is key. If going the used route, make sure you understand what the return policy is, in case there are issues.

Best of luck!
-Mike

Ephstarp Loc: Coventry, RI

Tokina 16-28 or the Tamron 15-30 both are excellent lenses.

Najataagihe

Rather than hijack this thread further, I moved the discussion here:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642311-1.html


Thanks, again, Gene51, for being so civil.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

You left out the best ultra wide angle. The Nikon 20mm prime lens. I have them all and this is an incredible lens.