For landscape photography, I prefer prime lenses on medium format or large format cameras and lenses. When shooting primes on 35mm small format cameras, I use: 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 Nikkor 55mm f/3/5 Nikkor macro 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor However, when I shoot zooms on 35mm small format cameras, I use: 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor Since I shoot landscapes, weddings, and action with my equipment, I do not use smaller and slower lenses for my small format shooting.
Looks like a nice lens setup! 2.8 definitely has its value if you shoot weddings and action as well. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 that see heavy use if I am photographing action or an event (I don't do much of either anymore, but no plans to get rid of them - because they are so handy!) Thanks for the comment!
I recently bought a used Sigma 100-400 in like new condition and couldn't be happier. It's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned and has basically replaced my Nikon 70-200 f4 unless I'm wanting to go lighter. I shoot with a D810 but if I replace it with a mirrorless full frame camera someday I plan to keep on shooting the Sigma.
I've been very happy with the Sigma and I agree - to me, it seems pretty sharp. That makes it all that much harder to justify moving to the Nikon version when the current Sigma seems to be doing well. And I've really grown to like the extra focal length as well!
This is nearly exactly the setup I use for my Z7: 14-30, 24-120, and Sigma 100-400. The only minor difference is that I opted for the E-mount version of the Sigma, which I currently mount using the Megadap etz21. And... in a rediculous YOLO moment, I also bought the Z 100-400. I tested them both and honestly could not find a difference in the centers or corners, at 100, 200, 300, and 400, all at around f8-11 which is where I shoot for landscapes (like you :-). The MTF charts bear out how good the Sigma is... it even shows a slight advantage over the Nikon at 400mm. Short answer is that I am keeping them both for now but really like the Sigma better. It is, as you pointed out, WAY cheaper, (and actually the Nikon is even more expensive if you figure on buying an arca-swiss foot for the lens, which is better than screwing on a plate to foot that comes with the lens). And I also like how the Sigma handles... weight is about the same but it's a smaller diameter, which is easier to handle and I feel less likely to fall out of my clumsy hands. So the only remaining concern is the etz adapter, but that's no issue for you as you're using the F mount version. So from my experience having both, definitely enjoy the Sigma... I don't think you're going to see much of a difference in landscape photography. If you were shooting wildlife, wide open, maybe a different story. But for landscapes, I think it's the Sigma all day every day! Thanks for the video and keep 'em coming!
That's great to hear! Always nice to hear comparisons from someone that has used and tested both. I know for me it has been really hard to justify picking up the Nikon, especially given the significant difference in price for what seems no real upgrade. I think the lens setup we have is super versatile, I like knowing if I grab those three lenses that I have a big range of focal lengths I can shoot from 14mm to 400mm. Appreciate the comment! Thanks!
I have a friend with the Nikon 100-400, I need to borrow it when we're out sometime and try a side-by-side. I *would* like to have it - just have a real hard time ponying up the money. Perhaps one day!
Yeah - I wasn't suer what focal length would be most versatile for astro - 20mm sounds about right! And 1.8 was definitely the aperture I'd be looking to go with!
For landscape photography, I prefer prime lenses on medium format or large format cameras and lenses.
When shooting primes on 35mm small format cameras, I use:
14mm f/2.8 Nikkor
28mm f/2.8 Nikkor
55mm f/3/5 Nikkor macro
180mm f/2.8 Nikkor
However, when I shoot zooms on 35mm small format cameras, I use:
14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor
28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor
80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor
Since I shoot landscapes, weddings, and action with my equipment, I do not use smaller and slower lenses for my small format shooting.
Looks like a nice lens setup! 2.8 definitely has its value if you shoot weddings and action as well. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 that see heavy use if I am photographing action or an event (I don't do much of either anymore, but no plans to get rid of them - because they are so handy!)
Thanks for the comment!
I recently bought a used Sigma 100-400 in like new condition and couldn't be happier. It's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned and has basically replaced my Nikon 70-200 f4 unless I'm wanting to go lighter. I shoot with a D810 but if I replace it with a mirrorless full frame camera someday I plan to keep on shooting the Sigma.
I've been very happy with the Sigma and I agree - to me, it seems pretty sharp. That makes it all that much harder to justify moving to the Nikon version when the current Sigma seems to be doing well.
And I've really grown to like the extra focal length as well!
Love Astrophotography and Hocking Hills sounds like a good place. JGAP.
If I do pickup astrophotography, JGAP is definitely where I'd go to get started! Hocking Hills is pretty much my local stomping grounds!
This is nearly exactly the setup I use for my Z7: 14-30, 24-120, and Sigma 100-400. The only minor difference is that I opted for the E-mount version of the Sigma, which I currently mount using the Megadap etz21. And... in a rediculous YOLO moment, I also bought the Z 100-400. I tested them both and honestly could not find a difference in the centers or corners, at 100, 200, 300, and 400, all at around f8-11 which is where I shoot for landscapes (like you :-). The MTF charts bear out how good the Sigma is... it even shows a slight advantage over the Nikon at 400mm. Short answer is that I am keeping them both for now but really like the Sigma better. It is, as you pointed out, WAY cheaper, (and actually the Nikon is even more expensive if you figure on buying an arca-swiss foot for the lens, which is better than screwing on a plate to foot that comes with the lens). And I also like how the Sigma handles... weight is about the same but it's a smaller diameter, which is easier to handle and I feel less likely to fall out of my clumsy hands. So the only remaining concern is the etz adapter, but that's no issue for you as you're using the F mount version. So from my experience having both, definitely enjoy the Sigma... I don't think you're going to see much of a difference in landscape photography. If you were shooting wildlife, wide open, maybe a different story. But for landscapes, I think it's the Sigma all day every day! Thanks for the video and keep 'em coming!
That's great to hear! Always nice to hear comparisons from someone that has used and tested both.
I know for me it has been really hard to justify picking up the Nikon, especially given the significant difference in price for what seems no real upgrade.
I think the lens setup we have is super versatile, I like knowing if I grab those three lenses that I have a big range of focal lengths I can shoot from 14mm to 400mm.
Appreciate the comment! Thanks!
Great video! I’m with you. I have a 24 to 70, a 70 to 200 and my next purchase will be either a 16 to 35 or 12 to 24.
Thank you! Should be a nice solid lens choice! Gets the wide angle, standard zoom, and some telephoto! Very versatile!
You get what you pay for Nikon vs Sigma 100-400 and in the Mid Range the Z 24-70 F2.8 is one of the Hooy Trinity and Kills all others in that range
I have a friend with the Nikon 100-400, I need to borrow it when we're out sometime and try a side-by-side. I *would* like to have it - just have a real hard time ponying up the money. Perhaps one day!
If you do eventually go Astro 20mm F1.8 S or go home
Yeah - I wasn't suer what focal length would be most versatile for astro - 20mm sounds about right! And 1.8 was definitely the aperture I'd be looking to go with!