Andre Labonte wrote:
1) Thank you
2) an "implicate condescension" ... you would be incorrect in that. Certainly not my intent
3) I did read it carefully ... it is a non-sensical question as there is no magic set of 3 lenese for landscape photographers ... I would not perscrive to any such notion for any type of photography. I base all my reconmendations on a person's specified needs and wants. "Landscape photography" is a broad field and leaves much to interpretation. I've see landscape shots done with fish-eyes and with 600mm lenses along with everything in between. For me, the ideal "landscape" kit would be a 10-24 DX, a 24PC, a 17-55 a 70-200 and a 300 f/2.8 ... hey, that's 5 lenses, not 3!!!!
4) You are a patronizing a--, aren't you? Purely retorical question.
5) You would be mistaken again.
6) You never did answer my question, so I won't answer yours ... you seem to know everything anyway.
Honestly I was trying to help with my initial post and extend an olive branch in addition to wanting to help with my second post.
Andre, Thank you for the rapid response...
1) I have made note of the lens you recommended... And yes that is 5, not 3, but then who is counting...
2) I have been wrong before, but seldom when it come to condescending tones... As you noted, I am pretty good at it myself
3) Had this been your first response you would have receive a genuine thank you, instead of a placated one...
4) rhetorical, or Implied... You almost hurt my feelings...
5) to be wrong "Again" would imply I was wrong before... and I only have your word on that
6) What was the question
7) Does this mean we will never be "Snuggle Buddies" ??
If you honestly believe your intent was to help I would recommend some remedial vocabulary training... Especially in "Tone" If I interpreted your intent incorrectly, I apologize... But I so do love the bantering back & forth...
Andre Labonte wrote:
1) The name is Andre, not Andy
2) No need for you to be snide ... my post was not rude ... your reply was rude.
3) I answered with a question because by knowing your specific needs/ wants, I and many others will be better able to advise you.
4) I think you should be concerned with YOUR NEEDS and start the conversation from there rather than a pre-selected list of gear.
So I ask again, what are your specific needs and wants? From there a list of recomended gear can be advised.
Cheers,
Andre
C'mon Andre, the man was simply asking which three lenses have the Nikon "Holy Trinity" designation. You know, the gold triangle logo next to the Nanocoating N. Why you have to be all interested in specific wants/needs?
Andre made the right comment the wrong way - the net is that those three lenses cover a huge amount of the focal range and are terrific zooms, but it was a bit of a puerile question. Ultimately, a good kit is a set of lenses that cover the needs of the shooter. That might or might not be the three lenses Oldrattler asked about.
oldrattler wrote:
Is this combination the "Holy Trinity" for landscape photographers??
Nikon D 800 / 800e (Which)
Nikon 14 - 24
Nikon 24 - 70
Nikon 70 - 200 F2.8 VR
If not, what is?? Thanks, Jim
Yes, it is. I have all three.
BTW, I read through the thread and saw a few recommendations for the 17-35 f/2.8 lens. Just keep in mind that the 14-24 has a much more superior IQ. Since you have stated you are only concerned about quality IQ, the 14-24 is what you want if you can live with its focal length range and lack of filter thread.
Personally, if I had a D800 and and I only wanted to shoot landscapes I'd skip everything Nikon except possibly the PC-E range and get the following Zeiss ZF.2 lenses.
15mm f/2.8
21mm f/2.8
50mm f/2
100mm f/2
Maybe add in a 28 or 35 and a longer tele. That would all assume cost is not object. Though in that case I might splurge on the compact primes as I rather like landscape video too
poisonpill wrote:
C'mon Andre, the man was simply asking which three lenses have the Nikon "Holy Trinity" designation. You know, the gold triangle logo next to the Nanocoating N. Why you have to be all interested in specific wants/needs?
Thank you... I did not intend to start a war over lens... I "Childishly" thought it was a simple yes or no question
M635_Guy wrote:
Andre made the right comment the wrong way - the net is that those three lenses cover a huge amount of the focal range and are terrific zooms, but it was a bit of a puerile question. Ultimately, a good kit is a set of lenses that cover the needs of the shooter. That might or might not be the three lenses Oldrattler asked about.
I am not sure I should thank you or be offended by the term "puerile"... Oh well, I have been called worse... But is it immature / childish to ask a question of those possessing knowledge, or immature to continue wondering?? I was taught there are no stupid questions ( if knowledge is being sought) only stupid answers...
BTW, I read through the thread and saw a few recommendations for the 17-35 f/2.8 lens. Just keep in mind that the 14-24 has a much more superior IQ. Since you have stated you are only concerned about quality IQ, the 14-24 is what you want if you can live with its focal length range and lack of filter thread.
Thank you so much... I appreciate all the information... Jim
Jammy Straub wrote:
Personally, if I had a D800 and and I only wanted to shoot landscapes I'd skip everything Nikon except possibly the PC-E range and get the following Zeiss ZF.2 lenses.
15mm f/2.8
21mm f/2.8
50mm f/2
100mm f/2
Maybe add in a 28 or 35 and a longer tele. That would all assume cost is not object. Though in that case I might splurge on the compact primes as I rather like landscape video too
Thank you... The zeiss lens are highly reviewed and surely worth owning... I am just afraid the manual focus could be tedious on these old eyes... If I had the money I would have them all...
trenchmonkey wrote:
If I ever returned to shootin' landscapes, it'd be ALL manual focus glass...sh*t ain't movin' kids!
Thanks will... If I had more confidence in my ability to focus the manual lens would be my choose also... You are correct in that landscape is "Slow moving"
Distance scale, Jim. I sold a 14 f2.8 Rokinon to a buddy wantin' to go 'wide' and he too was worried about
his ability to focus. I took the camera and walked back a few paces, dialed in ~10' and f8 closed my eyes
and shot from the hip. Ralph and the entire arena was in focus. Stevie Wonder coulda done it. Just sayin'
trenchmonkey wrote:
Distance scale, Jim. I sold a 14 f2.8 Rokinon to a buddy wantin' to go 'wide' and he too was worried about
his ability to focus. I took the camera and walked back a few paces, dialed in ~10' and f8 closed my eyes
and shot from the hip. Ralph and the entire arena was in focus. Stevie Wonder coulda done it. Just sayin'
You turn a phrase as well as any I have read... If Stevie could do it there is hope for me... Thank you...
Am a predominantly landscape shooter and I'm always concerned about weight, even if the distances covered are a mile away from the car
Everything adds up unfortunately, bag on shoulders, L-bracket, remote and all other accessories, the tripod and ballhead strapped to my back, etc
Weight affects my mobility, which sometimes mean it's going to be tough getting to the vantage points I want to, or worse coming down from one!
Used to have the 17-35mm which I swapped for the 14-24mm. Love the latter because of its image quality but huge penalty for weight and an extra set of filter attachments, as compared with when I had 77mm filters across all my lenses.
Currently my kit is naturally dependent on location, recce-ed and researched so I know of potential. In general it's the 14-24mm, skipping the mid range for the 45mm PCE and the 70-300VR, stitching for the gaps if need be.
I mix it up with manual focus lenses too, simply because they're a joy to shoot with. Tend to rely on the green focus confirmation dot though I have a hyperfocal chart at hand ... it's not tough at all
Zichar wrote:
Am a predominantly landscape shooter and I'm always concerned about weight, even if the distances covered are a mile away from the car
Everything adds up unfortunately, bag on shoulders, L-bracket, remote and all other accessories, the tripod and ballhead strapped to my back, etc
Weight affects my mobility, which sometimes mean it's going to be tough getting to the vantage points I want to, or worse coming down from one!
Used to have the 17-35mm which I swapped for the 14-24mm. Love the latter because of its image quality but huge penalty for weight and an extra set of filter attachments, as compared with when I had 77mm filters across all my lenses.
Currently my kit is naturally dependent on location, recce-ed and researched so I know of potential. In general it's the 14-24mm, skipping the mid range for the 45mm PCE and the 70-300VR, stitching for the gaps if need be.
I mix it up with manual focus lenses too, simply because they're a joy to shoot with. Tend to rely on the green focus confirmation dot though I have a hyperfocal chart at hand ... it's not tough at all ...Show more →
Thank you... I think I will rent a Zeiss and see if I can focus successfully... As Will said, "Even Stevie Wonder can do it"... Maybe I'll get lucky...
I think you'll find live view extremely helpful for landscape use and manual focus, it's a lot like using a view camera, except 5 times smaller. You can even get a black cloth and throw it over your head and the camera. Some folks like magnifier loops or pop up screen shades as well.
Kell wrote:
probably...but they're all heavy as hell...I opted for a 16-35, nifty fifty and 70-200 VRII...get a break from the weight and expense and don't lack IQ or versatility
That's how I feel too. For me, for landscapes, I usually pack the 14-24, the thrifty 50 and a 75-150E. I have a 70-200 VR, it is fantastic but I usually don't use it for landscapes unless I know I want the VR for handholding or extra reach with a TC.
