Largobob

I have found throughout many years, and several different camera styles/brands that CHEAP does not generally equate to good. (Sounds a little like you want to buy a Ferrari for the cost of a Toyota.) It is true that most manufacturers offer a variety of lens choices, some better than others at a given focal length/aperture, and certainly at different price points. My BEST lenses (those that produce dependably sharp/pleasing images) are all FAST, HEAVY, EXPENSIVE, WEATHER SEALED, VIBRATION COMPENSATED, COATED OPTICS, FAST/ACCURATE AUTO FOCUS..... etc. Yes, I do own a few "cheaper" lenses, but they aren't my best. So, I think you may need to ask yourself what you REALLY want....because what you're asking for here, will likely not evolve in today's market.

My question back to you is WHY would any maker of lenses invest the time and resources to make a cheap product, when they seem to be selling the products they currently produce and making a profit?

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

Some Nikkor lenses are better than others ...

It has been MY understanding that the 135mm f2.8 Nikkor lens was sharper than the 135mm f3.5 Nikkor ... with the slower lens possibly being an older optical design.

Also, it could be a situation where YOU need to use a tripod for the longer focal length ...

... Certainly, you should use a tripod if-or-when you are attempting to perform comparative testing where you will be judging what a lens can-or-cannot do on its own vs. how it performs when you-or-I might be impacting its performance by how well the lens is focused/etc. ...

... The lighting on the subject may also impact how the lens performs BECAUSE of how well YOU can focus it ...

Regardless, one thing I 'discovered' is that some of the hollow tube lens adapters are NOT perfectly machined (this can be easily remedied) so that setting a manual lens at infinity without checking the focus may not result in the best possible image.

THAT is not to say that your Sony isn't sharper than the 135mm f3.5 Nikkor lens you were using ...

ONLY, that as you described the situation it is not clear that you were optimizing the capabilities of one of Nikon's lesser lenses AND if you were to test a multitude of vintage lenses then you might realize that there may be one which is suitable for your landscapes ...

FYI. Presuming a high level of quality control where there is consistency between each lens that came off a specific production line, I can tell you that my Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm f2.8 lens (I don't think it is a one-off anomaly) can produce remarkably sharp images as long as it is properly focused and the camera is well stabilized.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I would not dare to say that the Sigma 60mm f2.8 Art is a landscape lens. Yes, you could shoot parts of a landscape with it but for general vistas you need something wider than that and the equivalent of a 35mm or a 50 mm with your camera could be what you have been looking for.
The 135mm f2.8 AIs lens by Nikon is an excellent optic, affordable and could be very good for landscape photography.
I have several zooms and some primes and I reach for my zooms more often than I do for primes. My Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S has done very well for me with landscape photography. I can say the same of my old Nikon 28-105.
I agree with you entirely, nobody needs a f1.8 or faster lens for landscape photography.

Nikon1201

My favorite is a Nikon 18-200

Bob Boner

I shoot canon and use 3 lenses for landscapes--11-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70--200mm. In rare occasions, because of distance, I use a longer lens, 100-400mm

ole sarg Loc: south florida

I have an A6000 and basically use legacy glass or manual focus glass like those manufactured by mieke and samyang. Also have glass from minolta, canon and olympus. I seldom take my entire bag of lenses with me but rather say to myself: self lets shoot only 35mm today and that is what I take! Try it....

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

I've used everything from a 10mm (on cropped sensor) to 600mm for landscape. It's all good.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

It's "ridiculous" that you would pick a hobby that you can't afford!

Scout505 Loc: Dallas/ Fort Worth Texas

About a year ago I picked up a used Fuji X-T10 body to mainly use with adapters and legacy lenses. I wanted to check out mirrorless photography. The last year has really been eye opening for me...using manual focus with focus peaking is amazing. I take a lot less shots but the quality has really improved for me my favorite lenses are Nikon 28-50mm f/3.5; Nikon 75-150mm f/3.5; Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D; Nikon DX 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5; Nikon 35mm f/2.
Focus peaking really gets me the sharpness I want from these lenses...

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

Time to add some comments in response.

For one, when I do lens testing, I use a tripod. I use the focus magnifier the Sony A6000 series has. I trigger the test exposure using an infra-red remote. I test the lens at multiple apertures. Since I am shooting across a valley from my house, I only shoot test exposures in the morning before there is any heat distortion.

I do own wide angle lenses down to 18 mm. And I sometimes use them. But most of my shots are taken with longer lenses. I suggest anyone who thinks scenic photography requires wide angle lenses is missing a lot of opportunity. I personally live in an area of hills and mountains, where there is plenty of opportunity for long lens shots.

One of the advantages of a very sharp lens is that you can find multiple pictures inside one exposure, crop them out and still have presentable images. And when possible go back and shoot them again with a longer lens...

As to affording the hobby, let me only say that money is not a primary issue. But I worked hard for my money and I expect value for it. I refuse to spend a lot of money for "features" I do not need or want.

What do I want in a lens of a given focal length? First, sharpness and contrast. Second - build quality. Third - light weight. Fourth - price. Note that a large aperture is not on my list. Lenses in the class of the 60 mm f/2.8 Sigma lens referenced earlier are my sweet spot - not the large aperture bombsights that seem to be what lens suppliers are rushing to market.

Cheers

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

Nothing at all wrong with using a 60mm lens for landscape.

I shot this with a 150mm lens. For landscape I've used everything from a 10mm (on cropped sensor), and 14mm to 600mm on full frame. There is no such thing as too narrow a field of view if you understand how to use your gear. I prefer the more natural perspective of a longer lens, so my go to focal lengths for landscape is 45 and 85.

(Download)

User ID

Thaz a rare piece of common sense wisdom. Don't proclaim it too
loudly though, lest you wind up banned from the internet !


------------------------------------------------------------------


Nearly ALL extra wide angle landscape images I've seen lately
are "created" by the lens effects. If there was really an intriguing
scene there even without using an extra wide lens, then it could
be recorded with a 35 or a 28 [FF equiv] or even a normal lens.
IOW wild extreme perspective is bogus. Visually it tells me little
or nothing about the natural scene and its details. It mostly tells
me "This is what my ultrawide does to the world".

Ultrawide-ism is a cult, just like the Bokeh Cult. These two cults
unite at an absurdly expensive intersection: Extreme lens speed
offers extreme bokeh, despite an extremely short FL lens with its
naturally occurring deeeeep DoF, a DoF that "MUST" be defeated
to display overly silly bokeh. [Over use of the word "extreme" is
not accidental here.]

Sad to say that for the APSC format legacy lenses are a problem
for achieving a moderate wide angle view. Due to the 1.5X crop,
you need an extra wide FF lens to get a moderate wide angle for
APSC ... acoarst all legacy lenses are FF :-( If you want excellent
optics, you don't usually find it in 40 yr old extra wide lenses due
to the design compromises that achieve the extra angle of view.
Likewise using a SpeedBooster to fit a nice tame 35/2.8 FF lens
onto an APSC body is not the route to optical excellence.

A very simple solution is a compact FF body, adaptable to legacy
lenses. The basic original model Sony a7 is compact, and lately is
relatively cheap, while supplies last.

If you're gonna carry 2 or 3 legacy lenses, which are compact but
do tend to be heavy for their size, you will hardly notice the size
difference between an a6000 and an a7. PLUS ! The a6XXX series
has a horrible tripod interface, while the a7 is much better [altho
not especially great either].


--------------------------------------------------------------------


Modern lenses will score better than legacy when "Lab Tested",
but in real-world, 24MP imaging at f/8 and f/11 the better legacy
lenses show no visible deficiency worth worrying about. On close
inspection there may be MINOR residual optical flaws visible even
at f/8 or f/11. I wrote "minor" in ALL CAPS cuz I have a practical
definition of MINOR optical flaws: They're visible upon the rather
close inspection that occurs when the picture is otherwise just so
godawful boring that the nittpicking of tiny flaws is all the visual
stimulation it offers ... after the initial 5 seconds of "Oh ! wow !
Lookit that extreeeeeme ultrawide perspective effect !" IOW, if
the picture is actually really interesting, no normal person will
ever notice small optical flaws. Ergo those are MINOR flaws !

Too many shooters have failed to develop an eye for interesting
scenes in the real world cuz it's easier to look for fodder for their
ultrawide lenses. IOW they don't really find worthwhile scenes in
the real-world sense. They just produce "hardware manufactured
vistas" out of easier to find "ultrawide lens fodder". BOH-RING !

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

OK lost at "Bokeh" i see it a lot sometimes but never figured out what you all meant by it. I know it is something like "LOL" but like texters of which I proclaim to avoid doing I think things like texting using just letters are just a way of saying I am too lazy to type it all in when a phone call is quicker or you assume the text receiver will understand what you mean.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

Bokeh is how a lens renders something out of focus. Particularly in portraiture, the back ground is usually made to be out of focus, emphasizing the subject. "Good" bokeh would typically render out of focus highlights in soft, spherical blobs, with no definition of the shape. Bad bokeh will impart some shape definition. This is usually caused by the iris diaphragm.

To get the background to be out of focus requires large apertures and longer focal lengths, so that depth of field is minimized, with the lens focused on the subject. This effect is usually desirable for portraits, and rarely so for almost any other kind of photography, especially scenic photography.

Cheers

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The answer to your rant begins here !

The truth is many current (more expensive low ratio) zooms are equal ( resolution) to most normal primes !

So part of the solution is to get over the prime fetish.

Because of this, there is a very SMALL market for normal primes - the "market" is for very high performing ( expensive) primes - because good zooms satisfy MOST of the other market !

I agree, the Sigma 2.8 primes for the E-mount are excellent - so, just get the other two - the 19 and the 30mm and you are in business !

..