p.1 #1 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
I know there is never a precise definition of what is the right focal length for something. It does depend on what your intent is.
So GENERALLY speaking, would you consider a 24mm wide enough for most landscape stuff when shot on a Full Frame.?
I ordered the Sigma 24mm 1.4 to use for some astro photography and some landscape stuff on my D600. I have a 14mm Samyang that I picked up and can use for astro stuff and super wide angle. But would rather have one lens to do it all.
I am starting to wonder if I should have instead picked up a Tamron 15-30, or possibly looked for a used Nikon 14-24??
I would really like to hear from someone who has shot with the Tamron? I know that the Nikon 14-24 can't be beat, but hard to find them used.
p.1 #2 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
"generally", yes imo..but I opted for the 20 1.8 after selling my 16-35 because 24 would have been too limited..20 is more of a sweet spot for me anyway
p.1 #4 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
Depends on how shoot. Everyone is comfortable with different focal lengths. I guess you haven't owned an uwa zoom before? Hence not being able to figure out if its wide enough.
I would have rented or bought a used nikon 18-35, or 16-35. Shot with that for a bit, and figure out what focal length fits you best. However, guess its too late for that.
For me, i prefer uwa zooms for their versatility. I need at least 18mm on full frame.
If i were to buy an uwa prime. I'd buy a 20 1.8g. i dont think i'd ever consider a 24mm prime lens, but thats my own preference though.
p.1 #5 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
As stated any lens can be used for landscape, but if you are more than just the occasional landscape shooter you will want wider. The 20 is closer to being a good all purpose landscape lens but I personally still couldn't just have that for the wide end.
THe 24 and 14 is a nice combo but if you prefer to have just one lens then you need to check out the zooms.
Tamron 15-30 is very appealing
14-24 is what I use and I love it
16-35 is a nice one as well and has VR along with filter threads.
p.1 #6 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
Kell wrote:
"generally", yes imo..but I opted for the 20 1.8 after selling my 16-35 because 24 would have been too limited..20 is more of a sweet spot for me anyway
p.1 #7 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
It all depends on how you "see", but speaking for myself my 24mm PC-E is my widest lens and so far I've not felt the need to go wider than that. OTOH, my most used lens seems to be my Sigma 35mm f1.4. Depends a LOT on where you live, I think. Out here on the Northern Plains, I often use the Nikon 80-400mm AFS as my landscape lens.
p.1 #8 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
Landscape does not equal Wide.
I shoot landscapes with anywhere between a 16mm fisheye and a 400mm lens on FX. Only you can decide what's the right focal length.
p.1 #11 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
24mm can work, but IMO you're better off with a zoom (or more primes). Most of my images are from the 14mm ~50mm range, and that varies wildly from subject to subject. I sure wouldn't want to be restricted to just one or two focal lengths.
p.1 #12 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
OP, only you can decide what's wide enough. How can we tell you what's wide enough? That makes little sense.
For me, I shoot primarily landscape and my most used lens is my 16-35mm Nikon used at 16mm. My 2nd most used lens is my 14-24mm Nikon used at 14mm. When hiking or backpacking I will have the 24-120mm Nikon on my camera as it allows me the most versatility and flexibility if I happen onto a fast changing scene as I round a bend.
It's all up to you. I know the "thing" to do is ask everyone what our opinions are, but when it comes to lenses, only you can decide what is wide enough.
Go shoot landscapes with what you have now. If you feel you are constricted and not able to get wide enough, then you go buy a wider lens, whatever that is. And get back out and shoot with it!
p.1 #13 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
If you are happy with 24mm then yes, it is wide enough. I own a 24mm f2,8 Nikkor-N.C Auto and am perfectly happy with that. Most of the time I even grab lenses with narrower FoV to shoot landscapes and the 24mm stays in the bag.
I do own a 20mm and most of the time bring either one, but never both. In th ened it really depends on how you prefer to frame your shots. I made landscape shots I really liked with 135mm lenses.
One thing that I always found difficult to accept is that wider lenses are supposed to be better suited for landscape then tele lenses. Often with landscape shots I find that less is more and narrower framing and perspective compression adds to the shot rather then distract from it using too wide alens and including too much rubbish in a shot.
p.1 #14 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
I decided after getting advice and reading the comments from you guys, that I would keep my Samyang 14mm and use that for the astrophotography I want to try. I ordered a Nikon 16-35. Given the range and price point it suits me good, and I have heard a lot of good things about this lens. It was also on sale, which didn't hurt at all. And I have the Sigma 18-35, which is a great lens, but only DX, so I am going to sell it as the lengths are too close.
p.1 #15 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
Ghostinz wrote:
I know there is never a precise definition of what is the right focal length for something. It does depend on what your intent is.
So GENERALLY speaking, would you consider a 24mm wide enough for most landscape stuff when shot on a Full Frame.?
I ordered the Sigma 24mm 1.4 to use for some astro photography and some landscape stuff on my D600. I have a 14mm Samyang that I picked up and can use for astro stuff and super wide angle. But would rather have one lens to do it all.
I am starting to wonder if I should have instead picked up a Tamron 15-30, or possibly looked for a used Nikon 14-24??
I would really like to hear from someone who has shot with the Tamron? I know that the Nikon 14-24 can't be beat, but hard to find them used. ...Show more →
Your Samyang 14mm justifies your landscape purpose.
p.1 #16 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
the solitaire wrote:
...One thing that I always found difficult to accept is that wider lenses are supposed to be better suited for landscape then tele lenses. Often with landscape shots I find that less is more and narrower framing and perspective compression adds to the shot rather then distract from it using too wide alens and including too much rubbish in a shot.
Although it is true that landscapes can be taken with any focal length, the fact is, most people when they first think "landscape" are visualizing ultra wide angle. And there is a certain justification for that too, as if you look at 500px, or any landscape photography book, the greater majority of images are shot with an UWA lens.
In my opinion however, the best way to approach photography to start with is to build a three lens kit to work with, UWA like 14-24mm or 16-35mm, mid-range like a 24-70mm or 24-120mm, and a zoom like a 70-200mm or 70-300mm to start. That to work with, will save a ton of dollars, even if buying quality glass. The, you start adding the specialty glass, like the fast primes, or tilt-shifts... Otherwise you end up with an oddball mish-mash of gear. You should always have a kit that covers all the bases, even when just starting out. If I was shooting DX, I'd have the 10-24mm in there...
p.1 #18 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
Steve Perry has a great video on perspective and field of view, that addresses why different lenses can help you present your landscape images based on each scene.
p.1 #19 · is 24mm wide enough for landscape on full frame?
Depends on what you mean by landscape...
24mm gives you a lot of DOF, but also a lot of sky and asphalt.
35mm gives you less sky and asphalt, which is why it is usually assumed to be a lens for urban shooting, but it also gives you less DOF.
Longer lenses give you more image compression, & even less DOF.
A zoom lens gives you options, but it is a huge hunk of glass to be carrying around (unless your making your living off of it).
You really have to think about what you expect from the lens in the way of point of view, DOF, etc. and what your intended subject matter is going to offer you.
