Nikon 24-50 - Should I upgrade for Landscapes?

I shoot mostly landscapes so speed isn't so much of an issue

when I select lenses. Presently my wide angle set-up consists

of a 20mm f 2.8 and a 24-50mm zoom. The 20mm is fabulous

and allows me to get close to my subjects. The 24-50mm is

plenty sharp but shows quite a bit of distortion at 24mm (28mm

is fine). Also the front of the lens rotates as you focus - a minor

inconvenience. I could sell the 20mm and find a 20-35mm used

however, I don't need the extra speed. Would it be significantly

sharper than the 24-50 even though I never shoot wide open? I

imagine the new 24-80 wouldn't be any better.

The 20-35 is a very sharp lens. If I were you I would sell the 24-50 and get a 28 or a 24. Or you could always get the 18-35 nokon lens. Its very sharp, but watch out for distortion at the wide end. You should be fine unless you shoot seascapes with the horizon at the top or bottom of the frame. Hope this helps.

I have been using the 24-50 for landscapes and nature for 12 years. I particularly like it as a travel lens. I remember that Bob Krist (of National Geographic) used it for much of his work. I believe that he now uses the 24-85.

 

Alex

If you don't need the f2.8 speed, as Nate points out, the 18-35mm AF is a great choice at a very reasonable price. It doesn't have AF-S, but neither does most of the lenses discussed here.

Avoid the 20-35/2.8. It doesn't give adequate near-to-far sharpness in landscapes. It does have less distortion than most wa zooms though.

Hugh, thanks for your post. You hit on a topic I've been thinking over for a while. I use the 28-70 f/3.5 AF at f/5.6 or higher (probably 90% at f/8 or f/11) for nature and landscapes, and I'm well pleased with the sharpness. Still, when I read some Nikon user talking about his/her beloved wide lens (e.g., the 35-70 f/2.8 or the 28 f/2.8 AI-s), I want to see what I'm missing. <i>If</i> I'm missing anything.

 

<p>Anyway, I read a few reviews of the 18-35 and I wanted to share a quote from Thom Hogan's review: <i>My disappointment lies in the fact that this 18-35mm is the least sharp of the Nikkor wide-angle zooms. Both the 17-35mm and 20-35mm f/2.8 zooms are visibly sharper; but of course, what did I expect considering the low price of the 18-35mm? Well, the less expensive 24-50mm f/3.5-4.5 seems sharper (though it doesn't go nearly as wide).

 

<p>...For those of you thinking about using this lens on the D1 [digital SLR]: good choice! The issues of light falloff and sharpness don't really come into play, since the D1 only uses the central portion of the lens. Only at the widest aperture will you see any softness or falloff, and it's quite minimal. This is the lens of choice on a D1 unless you need a faster aperture.</i>

Hugh,

 

I would go for primes, zooms cant come close to the high level of correction a prime offers. I use the 18/3.5 (Ais but Af is same) alot and it rocks! Check one out in a camera store if you have the opportunity. The best wide-angle zoom is the long and heavy 25-50 Ai(s) Nikkor IMO.

 

Secondly i would go manual focus, autofocus in landscape photography is useless and you will be able to use the very sharp 28/2.8 Ais and the 20/3.5 Ai(for shooting into the sun). Prices for MF equipment are hilariously low, so go ahead indulge yourself ;)

 

Greetings,