1. Analyze patterns in your images on your camera’s LCD at 100% view – while looking at your images on the camera LCD at 100% view can be very inefficient and time-consuming (especially on the Nikon D800E with its massive 36.3 megapixel images), if you are shooting anything with repeating patterns, you need to know whether there is moiré in your images or not. Looking at the thumbnail on the LCD might not reveal moiré, so you will have to zoom in to see it. Very strong / nasty moiré might be visible even at 50% view or less, while you will only spot mild moiré at 100% pixel level view. If you see moiré and want to avoid it, proceed to step #2 below.
   Quick useful tip: if you own an advanced Nikon DSLR like Nikon D300s or higher, you can set the multi-selector center button on the back of the camera to instantly show 100% view without having to press the zoom button several times. You have to enable this feature here: Custom Settings Menu->Controls->Multi selector center button->Playback mode->Zoom on/off->High magnification. Once set, you will be able to zoom in to your images at 100% by simply pressing this button in playback mode.
2. Change camera to subject distance or adjust focal length – if moiré is visible in your image, the best thing you can do is change the distance to your subject. You can either physically move closer or away from your subject, or you can zoom in/out with your lens. Remember, moiré only happens when the pattern you are photographing exceeds sensor resolution, so all you have to do is move to a safer distance. Sometimes this means moving just inches away from your subject.
3. Adjust focus to a different area – while this is not always practical, adjusting the focus a little away from the patterns will remove moiré.
4. Change the angle of the camera – simply changing the angle of the camera a little can completely eliminate even very strong moiré patterns.
5. Stop down the lens to f/11-f/16 – when lenses are stopped down beyond a certain aperture (depending on the lens and the sensor size), an optical phenomenon known as “diffraction” kicks in. Diffraction effectively reduces resolution, which also eliminates moiré. While I would personally avoid doing this, if you cannot change your subject to camera distance or adjust your focal length for whatever reason, this technique surely works.

If you did not do any of the above and ended up with an image that has visible moiré, then your only option is to try to fix it in post-processing.

When I wrote about the benefits of a high-resolution sensor, I used the word “down-sampling” when talking about reducing noise and increasing sharpness in high-resolution images. Right after I posted the article, I got plenty of questions from our readers, asking about what the down-sampling process is like and how it can be done. I then realized that many photographers are used to the term “resizing” and have never heard of the term “down-sampling” before. I often use the word “down-sampling”, because “resizing” applies to both increasing and decreasing image resolution (and hence its size), while “down-sampling” only applies to reducing an image.

1) Why Resize / Down-Sample Images?

Why would you want to resize an image? Your camera is a very advanced tool and it contains millions of pixels. This is good if you want to print your images, but what if you want to share those photographs online? Many websites won’t even let you upload high resolution images, while others like Facebook will down-size them for you, automatically lowering the resolution and quality of those photographs. Because this automated photo reduction process is often not optimized for best quality, it can make your resized photo appear soft and might even result in loss of colors. To prevent that, it is always a good idea to properly resize your images before you use them online. This way, you are in full control of how your photo should look.

2) The image resizing workflow

Lightroom greatly simplifies the image down-sampling / resizing process. Here is my simplified workflow process:

1. Import images into Lightroom
2. Make necessary adjustments to the image I want to resize
3. Make additional adjustments in Photoshop that cannot be done in Lightroom (if necessary)
4. Export the image in sRGB color profile with specific settings

I use the above process most of the time and resort to my much more complicated Photoshop resizing process only when working on select images that I want to showcase.

3) The image resizing process

1. Select an image or multiple images you want to export out of Lightroom, then either go to File->Export or press CTRL+SHIFT+E on your keyboard. The export window will come up that looks like this:

   

   Let’s me go over each section.

2. Start out from “Export Location” and start out by choosing “Specific folder” from the drop-down. Next, click the “Choose” button and select a folder on your computer where you want the exported files to go. I set mine to “Lightroom Export” but you can choose whatever you want. Some people export to their Desktop and then check “Put in Subfolder” and type a different name every time they export. Whatever works for you. For “Existing Files”, I have set mine to “Ask what to do”, so that the system asks me what to do if a file is already present in my export folder.
3. Under “File Naming”, if you check “Rename To”, your files will be renamed to something different. I usually check this box and select “Custom Name”, then under “Custom Text” I type the name of the photoshoot. For example, if I type “Lisa and Bob Weddding”, then the first file will be called “Lisa and Bob Wedding” and the next files will start with the same name, with a dash and a number added at the end of the file. So it is safe to do this for multiple files as well. “Extension” does not matter – I set mine to “Uppercase”.
4. The next section is very important. This is where you manage the file quality and set some important parameters:

   

   When exporting images for the web, you should always choose “JPEG” as the file format. Right next to it there is a “Quality” slider. I have seen some people slide it all the way to the right, thinking that it will preserve the best quality. Well, it does, but it also results in humongous image sizes! I typically have set mine between 65 and 80. On rare occasions when I need to print I might pick a higher value, but never for the web. In case you are wondering how this value impacts the image size, try a little experiment. Export an image at 65, then 75 and then at 100 quality and see if you can see any difference between the images. I bet that in most cases, you won’t be able to tell the difference. Now about that size. When I exported an image at 65 and 1024 pixel wide resolution, the image was 65KB in size. The same image at 75 quality created a 74KB file. Finally, 100 quality resulted in a 174KB file! If you thought that going from 75 to 100 should only increase the file size by a quarter, think again! That’s more than twice the size, going from 74KB to 174KB! Therefore, you should never export images at 100 quality. I never had to use more than 80 quality for my images you see on this blog.

   Next, set “Color Space” to sRGB – that’s what most monitors on the Internet are able to see properly. Don’t check “Limit File Size To” and you can keep “Include Video Files” checked – it has no effect on images anyway.

5. Under “Image Sizing”, make sure to check “Resize to Fit” – this is what will actually resize the image to a smaller version for the web. I usually set mine to “Long Edge”, which limits the width or height of the image (depending on whether it is horizontal or vertical) to a certain value. That value you set right under, in the first input field. I typically use “1024″ pixels, which is a good size for the web, but it is up to you if you want to go smaller or slightly larger. Don’t use a high number here, because it will result in a huge file; plus, most websites won’t allow you to upload huge images anyway. For reference, the first image in this article is 1024 pixels wide when you click and open it in full size.

   

   The part that many people seem to be confused about, is “Resolution” under “Image Sizing”. That setting has absolutely no meaning when exporting your photos for the web. You can set it to any number you want, 1 being the smallest and 65000 being the highest numbers you can use. Whatever number you type in, Lightroom will simply write that number into the file as a reference for printing purposes. If anybody decides to print your image, their printer will most likely default to this resolution / DPI setting. But it really doesn’t matter, because DPI can be changed at the time of printing anyway. I leave mine at 72 pixels per inch.

6. The next section is very important. This is where you set the amount of additional sharpening Lightroom should apply to images after they are exported. What you pick in this section really depends on how much sharpening you have already applied to the photograph in Lightroom. If you have no idea what sharpening values to set in Lightroom, see my detailed article on “how to sharpen photographs in Lightroom. I have my Lightroom’s default sharpening set to “Amount: 50, Radius: 1.0, Detail: 50″. With those values, I always set my “Output Sharpening” to “Screen” and I choose “High” for Amount. A “High” value works great for me, because it adds just enough sharpening for my taste. If I perform a much more aggressive sharpening in Lightroom, I choose “Standard” instead, because “High” might be too much.
7. The last three sections are called “Metadata”, “Watermarking” and “Post-Processing”:

   

   When exporting images for the web, always make sure to check “Minimize Embedded Metadata”. What this setting does, is it strips all of the data embedded to your photographs (such as camera type, exposure settings, Lightroom settings and much more) and removes a thumbnail from the photo. This significantly reduces image size. If you leave this unchecked, people could potentially view not only the camera and exposure information, but also exactly what settings in Lightroom you used before you exported the image. If your intention is to leave some metadata / EXIF information for your viewers, then see my “How to remove EXIF data” article – I show how to selective strip EXIF data in that article.

8. If you have a watermark you want to use, pick the right one under “Watermarking”. If you want to find out how to add a watermark in Lightroom, see my “how to watermark a photo in Lightroom” article.
9. Lastly, leave “Do nothing” under “Post-Processing”->”After Export”.

Once you are done, just click the “Export” button on the very bottom of the window and the image(s) will start exporting.

That’s it! The good news is, once you set the settings in this window, Lightroom will always remember them, so you can reuse the settings without having to modify them each time.

In summary, when the size of aperture is large (a small F-number like f/2.8), light rays reach dust particles that are sitting on the sensor filter from different angles. Remember, although I refer to this as “sensor dust”, dust actually never touches the sensor, because there is a thick filter (actually, more like a number of filters packed together to form a single filter) that sits in front of the camera sensor. Therefore, by the time light reaches the physical sensor, it is spread out on a very large area, making dust appear as a large blob with a soft ring. When using very large apertures like f/1.4 on fast prime lenses, these blobs might be so washed out that they might be practically invisible to your eye. That’s why portrait photographers notice dust less often than landscape photographers!

Now when the lens is stopped down and aperture is significantly smaller, say at f/16, light rays coming from the lens diaphragm are perpendicular to the sensor filter. Because the angle is more or less straight, dust specks also cast direct and defined shadows on the sensor. That’s why dust shows up in images much smaller, darker and with more defined edges at small apertures.

Big thanks to Frank for sending the illustration!

When photographing wildlife, whether shooting bears in Alaska, or capturing birds in flight, one of the most important factors in choosing a lens is its focal length. Generally, the longer the lens (in focal length), the better. Unlike landscape and portrait photography, where you could get away with a cheap lens and still get great results, wildlife photography pretty much requires high-quality, fast-aperture telephoto optics. This obviously translates to a high price tag, with the lowest end of the spectrum averaging between $500 to $1,500, and the highest-quality / best reach lenses costing as much as $10,000+. Without a doubt, wildlife photography is a very expensive hobby to have (unless you are so good that you can sell your pictures and make good money), especially once you add up all the gear and travel costs.

1) Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR

If you want to get into wildlife photography on a tight budget, the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR is the lens you want to get. It is a great buy that will get you to 300mm at under $600 USD. Its autofocus is pretty good in daylight and its versatile zoom range of 70-300mm is great for large animals and perched birds. The lens is light and compact, making it easy to carry it around when scouting for wildlife in parks and wildlife spots. It is capable of producing relatively good bokeh, especially on its longest end, although its sharpness performance also drops quite a bit at 300mm. Having VR is a definite plus when hand-holding the lens.

In daylight conditions the Nikon 70-300mm VR can overall produce great results, but its performance does suffer in low-light situations – something to be expected from a slow variable aperture zoom lens. Unfortunately, the Nikon 70-300mm VR cannot be used with any teleconverters, so its range is limited at 300mm.

Here are some sample images from the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR:

See my old Nikon 70-300mm VR Review for more information on this lens.

2) Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

The next step-up from the 70-300mm lens is the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, a superb lens not only for portraiture, but also for wildlife photography. While its rather short on the long side, it is one of the few Nikon lenses that works with all current Nikon teleconverters. The Nikon TC-14E II makes it a 100-280mm f/4 lens (1.4x focal length multiplication), the Nikon TC-17E II makes it a 120-340mm f/4.8 lens (1.7x) and the latest Nikon TC-20E III doubles the focal length to 140-400mm (2.0x) at f/5.6. A truly versatile lens indeed. The latter combination needs good light for reliable AF and should be stopped down to f/8 for best results (there is some sharpness degradation at f/5.6).

Unlike the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II is a very sharp lens from 70mm all the way to 200mm. It sports some of the best Nikon technologies, including fast AF, Nano Coating and VR II.

See my detailed Nikon 70-200mm Review for more information on this lens.

3) Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S

The next lens is one of my all-time Nikon favorites, the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S. It is a pro-level lens with superb optics and very fast autofocus. Optically, it is a world better than the Nikon 70-300mm, better than the Nikon 70-200mm VR II + teleconverters and pretty close to its much bigger and heavier brother, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II.

I love this lens because it is light (compared to the big 300mm+ guns below), compact, sharp, capable of producing beautiful bokeh and works extremely well with the Nikon TC-14E II 1.4x teleconverter. In fact, I have my TC-14E II permanently glued to this lens, because it performs so well wide open at f/5.6 (the 1.4x TC slows the lens down from f/4 to f/5.6) and gets me to 420mm. This is the lens I prefer taking with me on a plane when travelling. It does have a couple of annoyances that I hope Nikon fixes on a future version of this lens. First, the lens has no VR. Second, its lens collar is not designed for good stability and you will have to replace it with a better one. Third, it has no rear optical element, all the way to the lens diaphragm, so you will have to be careful when shooting in dusty conditions (that’s another reason why I keep the TC-14E II mounted on it).

When hand-holding a telephoto lens with no VR, you always have to make sure that your shutter speed stays fast enough not to cause camera shake. Always remember that the longer the focal length of the lens, the more prone it is to camera shake. A general rule of thumb is to keep your shutter speed faster than the focal length of the lens. So if your focal length is 300mm, then your shutter speed should be faster than 1/300 of a second. If you use a DX camera, then don’t forget to multiply the number by 1.5x, which in this case would be around 1/450. Obviously, it all depends on your hand-holding technique. If you have very strong hands and a good hand-holding technique, you might be able to get great results with much slower shutter speeds, while those with shaky hands might need to increase the shutter speed even more to get acceptably sharp images. I explain all this in detail in my “how to photograph birds” article.

One question that I get a lot from our readers, is which combo to get – the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III, or the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S + TC-14E II. I have both and I certainly prefer the latter combo (300mm f/4 + TC-14E II). First, as I have already stated earlier, the 70-200mm + TC-20E III should be stopped down to f/8 for best sharpness, while the 300mm f/4 + TC-14E II is sharp wide open, so there is a stop of advantage right there. Second, AF speed and accuracy with the 300mm f/4 + TC-14E II is much better – you will get a lot more consistent results. What about VR (or lack thereof)? When I use the Nikon 300mm f/4 lens, I always keep the shutter speed fast, knowing that I do not have VR. It helps to shoot with a good low-light camera like the Nikon D700 or Nikon D3s that can handle high ISO, because I can set Auto ISO to regulate camera ISO when light conditions change. I definitely prefer faster and more accurate AF to VR.

Many of my wildlife photographs that I posted as wallpapers on this website have been shot with this lens. See my old Nikon 300mm f/4 Review for more information on this lens.

Some image samples from the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S:

What about the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens? Forget about it – its AF is slow in comparison. I have tried the 80-400mm and would not consider it for fast-action photography, especially birding.

4) Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II

The next big jump (in terms of size, weight and cost) gets us to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II – a phenomenal lens, one of Nikon’s best lenses to date. It is a workhorse tool used by professionals for sports, wildlife and portrait photography. I used the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II for several months and I was very impressed by its performance, especially when coupled with teleconverters. In fact, Nikon specifically released the TC-20E III together with this lens, which makes this lens almost like a “reference” lens for use with teleconverters (with the TC-20E III, the lens becomes a 600mm f/5.6 lens). It is loaded with Nikon’s latest technologies like VR II and its optics are simply outstanding. AF performance is top notch, with super fast and accurate autofocus acquisition, even in low-light situations.

I have been shooting with the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR lens for the last 4-5 years and I can assure you that the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II is overall a better lens to buy (unless you shoot large animals from a close distance, like bears in Alaska). I bought the Nikon 200-400mm for its zoom capabilities, but the lens turned out to be heavier, bulkier and it just does not tolerate anything longer than the TC-14E II. This leaves me with 560mm of effective focal length to work with on the long end, which seems to be very close in terms of IQ to the 300mm f/2.8G VR II @ 600mm. But its biggest problem is not the 40mm shorter focal length – it has one major weakness, which only shows up when you photograph anything at a distance. Up close, the 200-400mm creates beautiful images, but as soon as you start shooting subjects over 50 feet or more, its autofocus accuracy goes down the drain. Mind you, this does not typically happen when shooting lone birds in the sky, but primarily when there is something immediately behind the subject. For example, when I was photographing bears in Yellowstone, 8/10 times I would get grass behind the bear in focus. When I first noticed this behavior 3-4 years ago, I thought that it was just my bad camera/focusing techniques. I tried reacquiring focus, using only the center AF point and tried all kinds of tricks and the problem did not go away. I then thought that something was wrong with my lens, so I calibrated it like crazy, only to find that there was nothing wrong with it. Then I read complaints from other 200-400mm owners on various forums, who reported exactly the same problem with this lens and that’s when I realized that it was the lens that was the problem. I tried the 300mm f/2.8G (along with 400mm and 500mm lenses) in very similar conditions and they do not have the same problem. For this reason alone, I would not buy the 200-400mm again. I have been recommending the 300mm f/2.8G to our readers instead for a while now.

See my detailed Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II Review for more information on this lens.

5) Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR

The next best wildlife lens is Nikon’s heavyweight super telephoto bazooka, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR. This is the lens that will get you to 800mm at f/5.6 with a 2x teleconverter! Weighing a whopping 4.6 kilos, it is almost as heavy as Nikon’s longest 600mm f/4 lens (more on the 600mm below) and almost twice as heavy as the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II. It is a massive lens for a reason – its large aperture of f/2.8 requires huge glass elements to transmit so much light into the camera. Similar to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II, it also works exceptionally well with all teleconverters, including the Nikon TC-20E III.

Due to its massive size, this lens requires a good tripod setup. Forget about trying to hand-hold it, even if you have arms as big as Schwarzenegger’s. It has very impressive optical features and it delivers exceptionally good-looking images, especially at its maximum aperture of f/2.8. However, its weight and size are its biggest enemy. This is not the lens you would pack in a backpack for hiking.

A summary on which super telephoto lens I would recommend and my thoughts on 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 lenses is provided at the bottom of this article.

See my detailed Nikon 400mm f/2.8G Review for more information on this lens.

6) Nikon 500mm f/4G VR

The Nikon 500mm f/4G VR is sort of a “sweet middle” between the 400mm and 500mm lenses. Due to its slower f/4 aperture, it is actually a much lighter lens than the 400mm f/2.8G VR (by almost a kilogram) and only slightly heavier than the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR II. This is the only super telephoto lens that I would even consider hand-holding for short periods of time. Optically it is an insanely sharp lens, I would say about the same as the Nikon 600mm f/4 below. Again, not much to complain about in terms of optics and features.

Unlike the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR, the Nikon 500mm f/4G VR only works well with the TC-14E II teleconverter, giving an effective focal length of 700mm at f/5.6. Unless you shoot with the new Nikon D4 that can handle autofocus up to f/8, forget about using either the TC-17E II or the TC-20E III on this lens. I tried them both on the D3s and I was disappointed. Not just because I was getting softer images, but also because AF with the TC-17E II is very inaccurate and manual focus with the TC-20E III at 1000mm is very painful and cumbersome.

I will soon publish a detailed review of the Nikon 500mm f/4G VR lens, along with more image samples.

7) Nikon 600mm f/4G VR

And lastly, I present you the Cadillac of all Nikon super telephoto lenses: the Nikon 600mm f/4G VR – the longest, the heaviest, the bulkiest and the priciest lens of them all. This is the lens that many wildlife photographers get, especially those that photograph birds. It goes without saying that you need a good support system for this lens – a very sturdy Gitzo Systematic series tripod with a Wimberley Gimbal head is what I would get to hold this monster. Couple it with a professional camera body like the Nikon D3s, and we are talking about a whopping 6.5 kilograms here!

Again, your only choice for longer reach is to use the Nikon TC-14E II, which will give you 840mm of effective focal length to work with at f/5.6. Neither the Nikon TC-17E II nor the new Nikon TC-20E III work reliably well with the 600mm f/4 lens. Yes, in good light you can get some decent results with the TC-17E II, but the lens will occasionally hunt. As for the TC-20E III, AF is very unreliable and all over the place. Lens hunts even in good light with the 2x TC.

Nikon 400mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 500mm f/4 vs Nikon 600mm f/4

Choosing between the three Nikon super telephoto lenses can be difficult, given the weight/size considerations and how many different combinations you can do with teleconverters to get to a certain focal length. While you can do all kinds of math to see what you would get with each lens and shoot charts to see which combination wins, at the end of the day, it is all about which lens gives you the longest focal length with the least amount of problems like weight, size and transportation considerations. What is optically better? The Nikon 400mm + TC-20E III @ 800mm, the Nikon 500mm + TC-17E II @ 850mm or the Nikon 600mm + TC-14E II @ 840mm? The Nikon 600mm + TC-14E II performs the best wide open with the 500mm + TC-17E II coming in second and 400mm + TC-20E III coming last, but when all three are stopped down to f/8, those differences pretty much go away. The most important factor to consider is not how a lens performs sharpness-wise when shooting a test target from a distance, but how reliably its AF functions in mixed light environments. How good is sharpness if you cannot even lock AF on your subject? In this case, the Nikon 600mm f/4 is always going to be the top choice. As for 400mm f/2.8 vs 500mm f/4, the 400mm will give you more options and working AF with all three teleconverters, while the 500mm has a weight/bulk advantage. In summary: if you need the reach, you get the 600mm f/4. If you want to be able to hand-hold a lens, you get the 500mm. And lastly, you get the 400mm f/2.8 for its versatility – if you want to be able to use all three teleconverters with working autofocus. If your plan is to always use a tripod, then either get the 600mm f/4 or the 400mm f/2.8, depending on your budget. Here are the price differences between the three lenses:

1. Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR – $8,199
2. Nikon 500mm f/4G VR – $8,399
3. Nikon 600mm f/4G VR – $10,000

As you can see, the price difference between the 400mm and the 500mm lenses is minimal, while the 600mm is priced significantly higher.

Now with the upcoming D4, things might change quite a bit. If AF accuracy on the Nikon D4 is indeed better than on the D3s when teleconverters are used (with working AF at f/8), then the Nikon 500mm might be a better choice over the 400mm (850mm with TC-17E II and 1000mm with TC-20E III vs 800mm with TC-20E III) for reach.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

When I wrote about the benefits of a high-resolution sensor, I used the word “down-sampling” when talking about reducing noise and increasing sharpness in high-resolution images. Right after I posted the article, I got plenty of questions from our readers, asking about what the down-sampling process is like and how it can be done. I then realized that many photographers are used to the term “resizing” and have never heard of the term “down-sampling” before. I often use the word “down-sampling”, because “resizing” applies to both increasing and decreasing image resolution (and hence its size), while “down-sampling” only applies to reducing an image.

1) Why Resize / Down-Sample Images?

Why would you want to resize an image? Your camera is a very advanced tool and it contains millions of pixels. This is good if you want to print your images, but what if you want to share those photographs online? Many websites won’t even let you upload high resolution images, while others like Facebook will down-size them for you, automatically lowering the resolution and quality of those photographs. Because this automated photo reduction process is often not optimized for best quality, it can make your resized photo appear soft and might even result in loss of colors. To prevent that, it is always a good idea to properly resize your images before you use them online. This way, you are in full control of how your photo should look.

2) The image resizing workflow

Once again, there are many different ways to down-sample images. Here is the workflow I personally use for my Photographs:

1. Import images into Lightroom
2. Make necessary adjustments to the image I want to resize
3. Open the image in Photoshop
4. Clean up the image (sensor dust specks, unwanted objects, etc) using spot healing and other tools
5. Do additional image adjustments like contrast boost, dodge and burn, levels and curves, etc
6. Run a single pass of noise reduction (only applies if there is visible noise at 100%)
7. Run a single pass of sharpening at 50-75% (Unsharp Mask) – this step is only needed if you will be using the high resolution image for print
8. Down-sample the image to target resolution (target resolution is typically 1024 pixels wide for horizontals and 500 pixels wide for verticals)
9. Run another pass of sharpening at 25-50% (Unsharp Mask)
10. Export the image in sRGB color profile

The process might seem complex, but it is actually not. I do not do this with every image – only the images I want to showcase (like when publishing wallpapers, etc). Everything else gets processed very simply, by just exporting directly from Lightroom.

3) The image resizing process

1. First, let’s open our photograph in Photoshop by going to File->Open and selecting the photograph we want to edit:
   

   Make sure to pick the full resolution file, not a previously resized version. If you use Lightroom, simply right click on the target image and then select Edit->Open in Photoshop. I am assuming that you have already worked on your photograph and adjusted its exposure, levels, saturation, etc. (Camera RAW or Lightroom). Always make sure to edit problem areas in full resolution, so either do it using Lightroom’s built-in tools or in Photoshop. I prefer the latter when I know that I will be working in Photoshop.

2. Once the full resolution image is edited, run a single pass of noise reduction. I prefer a selective noise reduction process that only cleans up noise in problem areas. If you do not know how to properly reduce noise, see my Noise Reduction Tutorial. I prefer to use commercial tools like Nik Software Dfine for selective noise reduction, because they do it much cleaner and give the best results. If you do not have a commercial tool for this, use Lightroom’s built-in noise reduction tool, I find it to work better than Photoshop’s “Reduce Noise” filter. Here is a screenshot of Nik Software Dfine reducing noise:
   

   The purpose is to reduce noise in the sky and other affected areas of the image.

3. This step is only needed if you plan to keep the original image in full resolution for print. There is no practical reason to sharpen an image before you down-scale it (big thanks to Mark for correcting me). If your purpose is only to publish an image to the web, then skip this step completely.

   Make sure to apply a good sharpening technique to your high-resolution image. While commercial tools are great for this step, Photoshop’s built-in filters like “Unsharp Mask” and “Smart Sharpen” work great too. Here I am using 75% sharpening with 1 pixel radius:

   

   Again, there are many different ways to sharpen images. If you prefer to sharpen in Lightroom, see my “how to sharpen images in Lightroom” article.

4. Now we are at a very important step – we will be down-sampling the image to lower the image resolution. To accomplish this, go to Image->Image Size and you will be presented with the following dialog:
   

   At this point, you have to select the target resolution. I personally export 1024 pixels wide, but you might need to export in smaller or larger sizes (depending on what you want to do with it). Make sure to check “Constrain Proportions” on the bottom. Now type the target pixel size in the “Width” input with “pixels” selected next to it. As you type the width, you will see that the height will automatically adjust to a smaller number. For me, Photoshop automatically picked “681″, as seen below:

   

   The next big task is to select a resampling method. On the very bottom of the screen you should see a dropbox with the following choices: Nearest Neighbor, Bilinear, Bicubic, Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper. I personally favor the “Bicubic (best for smooth gradients)” one, because it does a great job in reducing noise without sharpening the image (which we have already done). Occasionally I use “Bicubic Sharper” for some images, but “Bicubic” is my preference. Click OK after you are done making your choice.

5. Now the image is much smaller in size. Noise should be completely gone as well (assuming it was not too noisy to start with), thanks to the Bicubic down-sampling method that we have used in the previous step. Now it is time to sharpen the image a little more, which will be the final step of the process before we extract it. Once again, either use a good selective sharpening process, or Photoshop’s “Unsharp Mask” as I have:
   

   Remember, this is your final step to make your image look good, so be very careful in sharpening it. Pick an are of the image with the most detail and play with the sharpening “Amount”. I set mine on “50%” and it was plenty to bring out the detail I want. I could do “75%” with a 1 pixel radius and still get a good result though, so the range of 50%-75% seems to work great for this particular image. Every photo is different though, so you might find yourself using between 25-75%. Make sure not to over-sharpen the image!

6. The final step is to extract the image for the web. Do not simply use the “Save” function – it will create a huge file that is not appropriate for the web. Instead, go to File->Save for Web & Devices. A screen will come up, as shown below:
   

   This screen is very important, because it controls the format, resolution and other important things that will be embedded to your image. First, select JPEG as the format. I typically set my Quality to “80%”, which is a good target for photographs. I find that anything lower than 70% visibly degrades image quality and anything above 80% is an overkill for the web. Make sure that both “Optimized” and “Embed Color Profile” are checked. Blur should be at 0 and Matte does not matter (white by default). Next, make sure to check “Convert to sRGB” – you need this so that the colors in your photos are displayed correctly. I also often leave my “Copyright” metadata. Click Save, pick a location where you want to save the final image, give it a name, then click Save again.

   I have been asked a lot about the PPI (pixels per inch) setting that I use on my web photos. Whether you use Lightroom, Photoshop or any other image processing software, the value you use for PPI does not matter. You can leave it at whatever value (I believe 72 is default) and you don’t need to change anything. The PPI value is only important for print – changing it while exporting images for the web will only add metadata to the file and will have no impact on how it is actually displayed on a monitor.

That’s it! Here is my final image processed with the above steps:

And here is another image that was processed the same way, from my “Best of 2011” collection:

Click here to download the above image in 19201200 Wallpaper resolution.

My next tutorial will be on resizing and optimizing images for Facebook. For those who use Lightroom, I will post a separate article on the best way to resize images in Lightroom.

You recently commented about downsizing a high-resolution image to a lower-resolution in order to reduce the apparent noise. While I knew that this is an effective way to reduce noise visible in the images, I had not thought in much detail about the technical reasons why this works.

After a long evening’s thought on the subject, and running a few questions past my friend and fellow engineer, I believe I have a (reasonable, though perhaps not perfect!) handle on the subject…

If the image signal and the image noise had similar properties, averaging neighboring pixels in order to reduce the resolution would not improve the signal-to-noise ratio. However, signal and noise have different properties.

There is (in general) no relationship between the noise in neighboring pixels. Technical junkies call this “no correlation”.

Correlation is the long-term average of the product of two signals N1 x N2. If two signals have no correlation, then the mean of their product is zero.

The signal in neighboring pixels has a high degree of correlation. If you add uncorrelated signals, then their “power” is added, meaning the combined signal is the square root of the combined power.

N_comb = sqrt(N1^2+N2^2) and for N1 = N2 = N we get N_comb = sqrt(2)*N, where N1, N2 are root-mean-square (RMS) values of the noise.

However, if signals are highly correlated, then their sum is effectively the sum of their magnitudes:

S_comb = S1+S2 and for S1=S2=S we get S_comb = 2*S

So, if we add the content of two neighboring pixels, we get:

SNR_comb = S_comb/N_comb = sqrt(2)*(S/N)

So, the signal-to-noise increases by square root of two, which is about 40%.

Now, you may say that the signal in neighboring pixels is not always 100% correlated. The correlation between the signals depends on the image content. If the image content is very smooth, the correlation is high. If the image content varies very fast, the correlation is low. Of course, noise will be more noticeable in smooth areas and the effect of resampling the image will be stronger.

Adaptive noise filters take into account the absolute signal-to-noise and the image content. They reduce the resolution more in areas that are smooth and have poor signal-to-noise and keep the original resolution in areas that have strongly varying image content and high signal-to-noise. You can think of it as a joint optimization of SNR and resolution.

Now, we also need to look into the different sources of noise:

1. The first source of noise is dark current which is caused by electrons that accumulate in the individual pixel well, even if there are no photons entering (lens cover on). Dark current becomes dominant for very long exposures. For normal exposures the errors from trapped electrons are negligible.
2. The second source of noise is the read-out noise. This is essentially generated by two sources: A) Noise added by the amplifier and B) Noise generated by the analog-to-digital converter. It is a fixed amount of noise that is added to each image during read-out. When you choose the ISO setting on your camera, you essentially set the read-out gain and therefore the read-out noise. The higher the ISO, the higher the read-out gain and the less read-out noise. Of course if you pick an ISO which is too high you will get signal saturation. So for low-light situations always pick an ISO that is no higher than needed to capture the image you want.
3. The third source of noise is called “quantization noise” and is a bit harder to understand. It has to do with the fact that (in low-light conditions) we don’t sample a smooth, continuous flow of photons but rather discrete bunches of photons. The problem is, that a source of light does not produce a stream of photons that are spaced equally in time. So, if you image a low light source that sends out (on average) 100 photons per second, you may receive 90 photons for the first second, 105 for the second etc.. The average error will be on the order of the square-root of the number of photons (or electrons in the pixel sensor well). A typical sensor well contains between 20,000 and 60,000 electrons when fully charged. The maximum amount depends on the pixel size. A sensor well with 20,000 electrons has an error of approx +/-141 electrons when fully charged or +/-0.7%. A well with 60,000 electrons has an error of approx +/-245 electrons when fully charged or +/-0.4%. While we may be able to reduce dark current and read-out noise by cooling the sensor, there is essentially nothing we can do about it. If we keep on shrinking the pixels, we will have smaller and smaller electron wells and less and less electrons trapped.

   The above errors of 0.7% or 0.4% appear rather small and we would not be able to notice them. However, in low-light situations, sensor wells will be only partially filled. If we only manage to trap 1000 electrons, the error becomes 3%. If we only trap 100 electrons, the error becomes 10%.

   Notice that the term “quantization noise” has nothing to do with the signal quantization by the analog-to-digital converter. It has to do with the fact that your signal actually arrives in quantums of energy.

What do you guys think? Anyone wants to challenge Mike’s analysis? :)

Pixel Size, Pixel Density, Sensor Size and Image Processing Pipeline

OK, this topic is rather complex if you do not know anything about pixels and sensors. Before you read any further, I highly recommend to read my “FX vs DX” article, where I specifically talk about pixel and sensor sizes and their impact on image quality.

As you may already know, pixel size, pixel density and sensor size all contribute to how well a camera deals with low-light situations (high ISO performance) and how well it sees range of light (dynamic range). Pixel size is a very important attribute of a sensor’s overall performance – typically the larger the pixel, the better the overall performance. Pixel density is closely related to the pixel size – larger pixels equal lower pixel density, smaller pixels equal higher pixel density. That’s because pixel density is measured by the number of pixels per inch. There is a fourth, very important attribute that very few people mention when talking about pixels and sensors that also plays a huge role; it is the software algorithm run by the image processor that analyses the data from the sensor and runs a series of image processing steps to reduce various artifacts, reduce noise, apply sharpening and more. This is commonly called the “image processing pipeline”. All four of these factors significantly impact the overall image quality and are closely related to each other. A good camera should have a good balance of pixel size and pixel density, sensor size and image processing pipeline.

Let me give a few examples to clarify this a little more. If you have two identically sized sensors – one with small pixels (hence higher pixel density), and one with large pixels (lower pixel density), everything else being the same, the former should generally produce lower quality images than the latter, especially when it comes to noise. The Nikon D3s, having much larger pixel size performs much better at high ISOs than the Nikon D3x (when viewed at 100%), which has more pixels / resolution and smaller pixel size. Makes sense, that’s why Nikon makes two different cameras for different needs.

Now let’s take another example. If you take two cameras with different sized sensors, “A” being the one with a larger sensor and “B” being the one with a smaller sensor, which one would perform better? It would depend on pixel size and density and the image processing pipeline – the other important variables I talked about above. If the image processing pipeline is exactly the same and the pixel size on camera “B” is the same as in camera “A” (hence “B” has less total resolution), then we should see very similar pixel-level performance. Now what if camera “B” has the same resolution as camera “A”, but has a much better image processing pipeline? Pixel size on camera “B” is smaller, which technically should make camera “B” produce more noise, but its image processing pipeline is superior and hence it compensates for the difference. When comparing images from both cameras, despite variances in sensor sizes, you might see very similar noise performance (I am obviously excluding depth of field and other differences for simplicity purposes). I explained this in more detail in my Nikon 1 V1 Review. While having a much smaller sensor than the competition, the Nikon 1 V1 shows impressive high ISO performance due to a much better image processing pipeline. When people first saw that the Nikon 1 V1 high ISO images look clean, many claimed that Nikon was “cheating” by adding noise reduction at high ISOs even on RAW files. What they don’t realize is that Nikon has been doing it for a while now and it is by far not the only manufacturer that does it. Everybody is doing it nowadays; otherwise images would look too darn noisy! There is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of noise reduction, as long as the manufacturer knows how to properly apply noise reduction without losing too much detail.

Lastly, let’s take two different cameras with identical sensors with the same pixel size and density. One might perform better than the other in terms of noise. How? Again, better in-camera image processing. Sony manufactures most of Nikon’s sensors and uses those same sensors in their Sony Alpha DSLRs. And yet due to Nikon’s better image processing pipeline, Nikon cameras show better overall image quality, specifically at high ISOs. Same sensors, different output.

There are other important variables such as overall quality of sensor, bayer and anti-aliasing filters that also contribute to overall image quality, but I am not adding them to the mix for simplicity purposes.

Nikon’s Change in Strategy

So why did Nikon all of a sudden decide to reverse its game and go with a high resolution sensor on a lower-end full-frame body like the Nikon D800? Because it makes sense for Nikon. Canon realized this a while ago, which is why it introduced the Canon 5D Mark II with a 21 MP sensor. Nikon started out with its flagship Nikon D3 line, then came up with a lower-end D700 body that used the same sensor, same AF and other specifications, including the image processing pipeline. As expected, the lower-end Nikon D700 started to heavily cannibalize the D3 sales. Demand for the D700 skyrocketed, while D3 was not selling so well anymore. Then Nikon released the D3x as its flagship “high resolution” camera. With the pricing strategy Nikon chose, it killed the potential D3x sales and made it out of reach for most people out there. By then, Nikon D700 was selling strong and both D3 and D3x were suffering badly. Then came the Nikon D3s, which offered significantly better low-light performance. The flagship product was back in the spotlight and sales figures started to look better – those who needed the best camera would get the D3s, while everybody else that had budget constraints had to live with the D700. D3x continued to suffer, despite the drop in price. Meanwhile, Canon was doing really well with its two cameras – the Canon 5D Mark II sold like crazy, while pros that needed better low-light capabilities got the 1D Mark IV (if only it was not for the plagued AF issues on the 1D series, the camera would have sold even better). What happened with Canon 1Ds sales? That’s right, just like the D3x they also plummeted. Canon 5D Mark II has been the best selling Canon camera among most photo enthusiasts and pros. Differences? Canon 5D Mark II appeals to all kinds of photographers from wedding/events to landscape and fashion photographers, while the D700 mostly appeals to wedding/events and sports/wildlife with the MB-D10 battery pack. The last part is where Nikon made a mistake. With the MB-D10 and the right batteries, the Nikon D700 can be almost as fast as the original D3, sharing mostly identical features and costs much less. Nikon D3s was late in the game – D700 sales were still very strong even after D3s came out. We all anxiously waited for the Nikon D700s with the same D3s sensor, but it never came out. Then we thought we would get a D700x, which also never materialized. If Nikon released a D700s, it would have killed D3s sales. If it released a D700x, it would have buried the D3x forever.

Now we are about to see a significant change in strategy, with a new breed of a lower-end D800 pro line with a high resolution sensor. Do the same thing Canon does – high resolution, low FPS, perhaps less features here and there to differentiate it from the D4 line, so that it does not cannibalize the D4 sales. Sports and wildlife photographers spend tens of thousands of dollars on expensive 600mm lenses, so they clearly can afford to buy the D4. Everyone else that cannot, has to live with a camera that would appeal to a large group of people – from landscape, architecture and studio photographers to event photographers that do not seem to mind a high resolution camera. Canon released the 7D to compete with the D300s and recently introduced the 1DX to compete with the D4, why not bite them back with something that can challenge the 5D Mark II?

But revenge and larger market capture are not the only reasons why Nikon decided to go with a 36 MP sensor on the D800, in my opinion. There are two more key factors here – high resolution sensors are cheaper to make in the long run for Nikon than low-light sensors. Sounds wrong, but Nikon spends a lot of R&D money on its noise reduction algorithms. And after spending all that time and money, it is painful to see something like the D700 cannibalize its flagship line sales. Do you know that both Nikon D3 and D3s have almost identical sensors? The difference between Nikon D3 and D3s is mostly software – the same image processing pipeline changes I have been talking about. That’s why you do not see any improvements at low ISOs – the Nikon D3s only looks better above ISO 800. With Sony making high resolution sensors for Nikon, it is better to just go with the flow than continue the same trend. Put the primary focus on the flagship line, make it super attractive for all that need it and can afford it and introduce a lower-end pro line for everyone else that wants a high-resolution but slow full-frame camera. Increase the price on the latter so that it does not eat up the flagship sales and the problem is solved. Nikon knows that Canon abandoned its 1Ds line, so why bother with two flagship products? Most likely we won’t be seeing a D4x in the future.

This is my analysis of the current Nikon situation. I might be wrong, so we will see – time will show.

The Benefit of a High Resolution Sensor

By now you have probably read about the “megapixel myth” and have probably heard this phrase a number of times: “camera resolution does not matter”. It sure does. Now before rotten tomatoes come flying my way, let me first finish the sentence: depending on what you do with your photos. If you only publish your photos for the web, or print on your small printer at home or provide pictures to your wedding/event clients, then you would rarely need more than 10-12 megapixels. But if you are a landscape or a fashion photographer that wants to sell large prints then you need a high resolution camera. Even many wildlife photographers choose to shoot with a DX camera for the “reach”. If I could get my hands on a 36 MP sensor and have the ability to crop my frame to what I can get with a DX camera today for the same “reach”, I would be a happy camper. There is a reason why there is demand for high-resolution cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II. If digital Medium Format cameras were affordable, those 40-50 MP cameras would be in huge demand. Yes, most of us can easily live with a low-resolution camera. In fact, considering what most of us end up doing with our pictures, even the compact mirror-less cameras would suffice for 90% of our needs. However, there are many photographers out there that would hugely benefit from a higher resolution camera.

The megapixel myth is true, but it works both ways. The need for a high-resolution sensor is as much of a myth as the need for a low-light sensor. I own the Nikon D3s, which has been the king of low-light photography until D4 came out. How many really high ISO images above ISO 1600 do you think I have delivered to my clients, compared to low ISO images? Not that many. Why? Because to get the highest quality images, I avoid shooting at very high ISOs when possible. Except for some extreme situations like shooting wildlife at dusk or dawn and maybe shooting in dim churches, you will find yourself rarely using extremely high ISOs. If you don’t believe me, open up your Lightroom and do a quick count of images below ISO 800 and above ISO 800 for the last year. You will be surprised to see the numbers (unless you have no idea how to shoot your camera and have your D3s permanently set to ISO 3200 :))

My point is this – a good general-purpose camera should have a good balance of sensor resolution and low-light capabilities. So, extremely high resolution is bad, because image processing algorithms won’t be able to cope with that much noise today. And at the same time, you are not getting much out of a low-light sensor if it has too little resolution.

Finally, what is the benefit of a high resolution sensor? The true benefit of a high resolution sensor when compared to a low-resolution / low-light sensor, is that you have the option to down-size/down-sample your images in post-processing. Why would you want to do that? To reduce the amount of noise, of course. With a high resolution sensor, you have the option to shoot really big images and you can down-sample their size in low-light situations to reduce the amount of noise. With a low-resolution low-light camera, you can shoot good quality images right out of the camera, but you can never effectively increase its resolution. You would be surprised how little of a difference you will see when taking an image from the D3 at ISO 3200 and comparing it to an image from the D3x at ISO 3200, down-sampled to 12 MP. Now I am not here to say that D3x and D3 have the same high ISO noise, because it depends on how you look at it. At 100% pixel size view, the Nikon D3 is obviously going to look better. But when both are viewed at 12 MP, meaning the D3x image down-sampled to 12 MP to match the D3 image, then the images will look similar in terms of noise. Don’t believe me? Head on to DxOMark, put D3 and D3x side by side, then look at the SNR chart under “Measurements” in “Print” size:

Those noise levels look about the same to me. If Nikon D3x came out after D3s, we would have probably seen similar results in the above chart when comparing the two.

Is 36 MP an overkill on a full-frame sensor? Given what Nikon has been doing with its noise reduction, then no, it is not an overkill. If my projections are right, we should be seeing at least a 1 full stop improvement over the D700 when the D800 image is down-sampled between 12-16 MP. What this means is that at ISO 3200, the Nikon D800 should look about the same or better than Nikon D700 at ISO 1600, when the D800 image is down-sampled to 12-16 MP. And you should end up with a sharper D800 image on top of that (due to resizing). Nikon’s built-in noise reduction, along with Photoshop/Lightroom software image reduction algorithms should make this happen.

Don’t be scared of 36 megapixels. Remember, the pixel size on the D800 will be the same as on the current D7000. If you find your lenses to be working well with the D7000, they will work equally well on the upcoming Nikon D800, with the exception of corners – that’s where you might see differences. That’s because D7000 hides the corners of full-frame lenses due to the smaller sensor, while the D800 will expose them in full. But you can work around those problems in the field. Crop the corners a little more if your lens has bad corner performance – you will have plenty of pixels to work with.

A high resolution sensor would obviously have its own disadvantages as well. More resolution equals bigger files, hence slower FPS (I know some might say slower post-processing as well, but it is debatable, because computers are very fast nowadays and should be able to easily cope with higher processor and storage requirements). On top of that, even a large memory buffer would clog up pretty quickly, so shooting continuously at 4 FPS for more than a few seconds is out of the question. But that’s what the D4 is for. Need to spray and pray? Get a D4. And if buffer or image size are such a problem, shoot away in DX mode. You will have that option on the D800.

What are you thoughts on all this?

(Image courtesy of photo.net)

See how noticeable the moiré pattern is on the jacket? That’s moiré for you, at its worst. Moiré is almost never seen in nature, but is very common in everyday objects and items around us – you might see it in all kinds of fabric, straight hair, architecture, etc. You might have even seen it on your television. In photography, moiré happens mostly because of the way light reaches the sensor and how the sensor interprets the light through the bayer interpolation filter.

While there are methods to effectively reduce moiré, there is no easy way to completely remove it in post-processing software. Lightroom 4 will ship with a moiré reduction tool and Nikon will also ship its next version of Capture NX with built-in moiré reduction functionality, but neither one will be able to fully get rid of the worst moiré pattern occurrences.

Here is a comparison between the Nikon D800 and D800E (the latter is prone to moire), which clearly shows Moiré on the Nikon D800E (Image courtesy of Nikon):

See “How to Avoid Moiré“

A typical low-pass filter contains of 3 or more different layers, as shown on the top illustration below:

As light rays reach the first “horizontal low-pass filter”, they get split in two, horizontally. Next, they go through an infrared absorption filter (illustrated in green color). After that, the light rays go through the “second vertical low-pass filter”, which further splits the light rays vertically. This light ray conversion process essentially causes blurring of the details.

With the Nikon D800E DLSR model, Nikon took a different approach. The full low-pass filter cannot be completely removed, because it would cause the focal plane to move; plus, the camera still needs to be able to reflect infrared light rays. Instead of making a single filter with one layer, Nikon decided to still use three layers, but with two layers canceling each other out. As light rays get split into two with a vertical low-pass filter, then through the IR absorption filter, those same light rays get converged back when passing through a reversed vertical low-pass filter. Hence, instead of getting blurred details as in the first illustration, we get the full resolution.

I am not sure if the above method is the best way to deal with the issue, but I suspect that Nikon decided to take this route for cost reasons. It would probably be more expensive to produce a single IR absorption filter layer coated on both sides, than continue to use the same layers, but in a different configuration.

Here is a sharpness comparison between the Nikon D800 and D800E (Image courtesy of Nikon):

1) Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

I want to start out with a lens that I have a love and hate relationship with. On one side, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G is one of the sharpest lenses ever produced by Nikon. It has phenomenal optics (center to corner, throughout the frame and aperture range), beautiful colors, super fast autofocus and an extremely useful focal range for wide-angle photography. On the other hand, it is a heavy, bulky and expensive lens that cannot accommodate filters. Sadly, not just circular filters and filter holders but pretty much any kind of hand-holdable filter. Its round front element shape and the built-in lens hood just make it impossible to use filters. Sure, you can buy a filter holder system from Lee and other manufacturers for this lens to accommodate filters, but it is not cheap and you would have to purchase a set of large 150mm filters, so forget about using your existing filters. I really wish Nikon allowed us to use small replaceable filters close to the lens mount, just like on telephoto lenses and this lens would have been irreplaceable.

If you do not heavily rely on various filters like I do, then you will never be disappointed with this lens – yes, it is that good. If ability to use filters is a must, the only other full-frame lens from Nikon I would consider would be the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR lens (see my Nikon 16-35mm VR Review). If you are a DX shooter, the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 is superb.

Here are some sample images from the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G:

See my detailed Nikon 14-24mm Review for more information on this lens.

2) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

Year after year, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G has been my #1 most used workhorse lens for landscape photography. While its performance is not as impressive as on the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, especially in the corners at large apertures, it just needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller to unveil its true performance. It has a lighting quick AF, beautiful color rendering, extremely useful zoom range on full-frame cameras and it takes filters! But similar to the 14-24mm it also has a few problems – it is bulky, heavy, expensive and has no VR.

Ever since the superb Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR (see my Nikon 24-120mm VR Review) has been released, I have been thinking more and more about switching to it. I have not done it for one major reason: lens build and weather sealing. The Nikon 24-70mm is built like a tank and has suffered all kinds of abuse from me. I have dropped it, exposed it to sub-zero / extremely hot temperatures, used it in very windy and dusty environments, exposed it to extreme humidity and the list goes on and on…it has survived it all and it is still performing like a champ. I honestly do not think the 24-120mm would have survived all that.

I would not recommend it for DX shooters, because it has a not-so-useful 36-105mm equivalent focal length due to the 1.5x crop factor, so something like the Nikon 16-85mm VR would be a great low-cost alternative. I had a hard time picking my favorite images from this lens, because there are too many, so here are a couple from this year:

Most of the landscape wallpapers on this website have been shot with this lens. See my detailed Nikon 24-70mm Review for more information on this lens.

3) Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

I’m sure you saw this coming – how could I not have the whole “lens trinity” with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II in this article? I was once approached by another photographer, who asked me what lenses I typically take with me when photographing landscapes. When I showed him my lenses and told him that I rarely leave without my 70-200mm, he was rather surprised. He thought that the 70-200mm was too long for landscape photography and asked me why I would even bother taking this bulky and heavy lens. I showed him a couple of pictures from the day before that I shot with the 70-200mm lens and right after he saw my images, he told me that he would buy it as soon as he returned home.

Landscape photography is not always just about capturing wide-angles and endless panoramas. I find myself often discovering interesting subjects that my 24-70mm is not long enough to capture and that’s when I switch to the 70-200mm to get close and tight. The Nikon 70-200mm is not just a portrait lens as you probably have come to known it – its optical performance is phenomenal for pretty much any kind of photography. The only thing you have to be careful about when shooting landscapes, is not to include any foreground elements that are close to you, or you will have a hard time getting everything in focus, unless your goal is to isolate a subject. The lens is ideal for shooting overlooks or other subjects from a distance. Every once in a while, I use the 70-200mm to shoot large panoramas as well. The only downside of this lens is its bulk and weight.

Here are some image samples of landscapes that I have shot with the Nikon 70-200mm lens:

If you have a DX camera, I would skip this lens and rather have a two lens kit comprised of the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR, which would cover most of your needs. These two lenses are also great for full-frame cameras as a lower-cost alternative to the Nikon “trinity”.

See my detailed Nikon 70-200mm Review for more information on this lens.

4) Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E

The Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is a special-purpose wide-angle tilt/shift or “perspective control” lens that is ideal for landscape photography. One of the biggest challenges of landscape photography is to bring everything from the closest foreground element to the farthest object in the background into perfect focus. While stopping down the lens certainly helps, you will often find yourself in situations, where you have to emphasize a foreground object by staying very close to it and yet stopping down the lens will not provide sufficient depth of field to capture everything in focus. In addition, stopping down lenses beyond f/11 on full-frame cameras and beyond f/8 on cropped-sensors cameras reduces image quality due to an optical phenomenon known as diffraction. Hence, it is often not a good idea to stop down too much. One option is to use a focus stacking technique, where you take a series of images focused at different points and then use post-processing software to combine those images. However, focus stacking only works well if your scene is very still and none of the objects are moving, so wind and immediate changes in ambient light could spoil the result.

By using a tilt/shift lens, you can tilt the focus plane in such a way that you could bring the entire scene in perfect focus even at large aperture values. The lens physically tilts up, down, left and right to give you full control over depth of field. There are several potential issues with using this lens. First, it is a manual focus lens. Second, it is a fixed focal length lens, which means that you will have to move around to compose your shot. Third, it only properly fits pro-level DSLRs like Nikon D700 and Nikon D3s and has limited movement on smaller DSLRs. And finally, it is not an easy lens to use and you will have to learn how to properly use the tilt/shift capability and compute depth of field depending on the tilt position. Once you master this lens, it is hard to find anything else that could beat it. Needless to say, its sharpness, contrast and colors are top notch.

Here are some of my image samples from this gem:

See my detailed Nikon 24mm PC-E Review for more information on this lens.

5) Nikon 24mm f/1.4G

If you are looking for the sharpest lens Nikon has ever produced, check out the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G – it is practically flawless in terms of optical performance. This is one lens that I would not hesitate using on any camera body, even the upcoming high-resolution full-frame Nikon DSLRs, because it is one of those lenses that will out-resolve any sensor out there. Aside from its astounding sharpness, contrast and colors, it has a very wide aperture range from f/1.4 to f/16, giving you the versatility to use it for multiple photography needs – from landscape photography to portraiture (especially low-light situations).

Some photographers initially complained about autofocus issues with this lens, but I believe that they might have gotten some bad samples from the first batch, because I have shot with three different samples by now and I did not have any AF problems whatsoever. Lola and I rely on this lens quite heavily for our photography work. Here are some image samples from this beautiful lens:

See my detailed Nikon 24mm f/1.4G Review for more information on this lens.

Please let me know if you have any questions!