Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #15 · best landscape lenses for d800? Which do best at infinity? |
Steve Perry wrote:
I never focus at infinity. Even when shooting stars, I am not at infinity. Now hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong on this, but in the old days before autofocus, we could use infinity as a dead stop of being at infinity. But I believe with all of our autofocus lenses, that there is extra space where the lens can actually focus beyond infinity and thus not be in focus at all. That the autofocus system needs to be able to turn the focusing beyond infinity and back.... kind of like Buzz Lightyear who goes to Infinity and Beyond....
If that's not correct, please one of you gear guru's step in here...
Bingo The only lenses that I know of that have a "true" infinity stop are the Zeiss lenses. Nikon's AF does indeed go past the infinity mark.
To the OP - For landscapes on the D800, I still like my 14-24 and 24-70 (30mm and above - it's good but not great from 24-30mm).
I'd also throw in the Zeiss 21, Nikon 24 1.4 (weird, but it's sharper than the 24-70 @ 24mm and the 1.4 opening is nice for stars), the Nikon 28mm 1.8, and for longer stuff I grab my 70-200 2.8 (although just tested a 70-200 F4 and it seems just as sharp).
I've used all these lenses focused out to typically landscape distances they are all great performers. Just depends on what you want. Personally, I'd start with zooms and then add primes. Here's the types of landscapes I do:
Thanks for the reply. I'll have you know that your picture of mesa arch was the one that really turned me on to the magic of the area. Specifically the light you were getting at that time of year. I finally stopped out last year and was disappointed that the February angle of the sun was nowhere near what you had... was still an amazing experience, though.
Thinking the same with the zooms... half of my efforts require me moving around pretty quick, so switching out primes constantly might get tough. Always considered the 14-24 the holy grail of wide angle zooms, so I really hope that will work out. (although the focus shift thing sounds annoying)
Next zoom would be tougher. 24-70 should have better quality than the 24-120, but if it ran it close, I'd be pretty tempted to go there. Other bonus is the VR... I'll be doing some video with this lens too, I imagine, so that's nice.
Is the zeiss really that special that it finds its way in your kit with the 14-24? From my reading the 14-24 becomes distortion free at around 20mm or so IIRC. Is it just the "look" that the 21 has?
Like the idea of the 24mm 1.4 for stars, but the issue with that lens reportedly is coma... as in: seagull shaped stars a third of the way from the edge or so. Interestingly enough, the samyang offering at 24 1.4 is supposed to be free of this and sharper wide open, so that was going to be my go to for night sky.
Thanks for the kind words on Mesa Arch Got pretty lucky with that one, had a good angle for the sun plus plenty of haze to pick up the sunrise colors.
Honestly, the Zeiss is mostly in the bag for when I need a good wide that takes polarizers. It does draw a bit different than the 14-24, but not sure if it's "better". Sometimes I like the look it gives, sometimes the 14-24 is more suited for the subject.
Haven't had a lot of use with the 24 yet (as soon as I purchased it, I seemed to have stopped needed that focal length - go figure). The limited use I have had with it has all been positive though - no real chroma issues. (But my opinion on that may change down the road, we'll see)