Better landscape lens for D300?

<p>Hello,<br>

I am in the process of preparing to buy either a 14-24 2.8 with Cokin X Pro filter kit or a 24-70 2.8. I am going on a trip in June and will likely be able to afford only one of these two great lenses. I don't want a dx lens, primarily because I will be purchasing a d700 or d3 later this year. I will still be keeping the d300 for wildlife as I love the crop factor with my 70-200 and tc-14. With filters not being an issue on dx at any focal length of the 14-24 on the d300, would you get the 14-24, or a 24-70 for landscape/nature use. I know the 14-24 on the dx will still be wide on the d300, not ultra wide, but enough I suppose, and certainly wider than the 24-70. My dilemma is that there are certain locations in which a wide lens is going to be desirable, like the subway in zion and antelope canyon. I have considered using the 70-200 for landscape and stitching shots for panos. I just don't know if the 24-70 is going to be wide enough on dx format. What do you think?</p>

<p>My recommendation is to get the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens - used - and sell it for roughly what you bought it for once you acquire the D700. That way you can use normal filters kits for it, you get your wide angle lens which you will definitely need in Zion and Antelope (the 24-70mm on DX is useless at an effective 36mm) and you don't end up buying the 14-24mm which although good in some ways is a pain in others once you are in FX world.<br /><br />The new 16-35mm would be another option or the older 17-35mm but on DX they might not be wide enough. I used 17mm on FX a lot when I went to Zion - the nature of narrow valleys I guess.<br /><br />My main note of caution is you need to be totally sure the 14-24mm is what you want as on FX it is ridiculously wide for most purposes and a landscape lens which can't easily take filters is a gross handicap. I am a pure landscaper and I found mine of very limited use and sold it after only a few months.</p>

<p>+1 for the new 16-35mm / VR... At this time it seems to be the wisest way to spend your money.</p>

 

<p>buying an FX lens for your DX camera doesn't make sense.</p>

<p>The 14-24 is a BAD range on DX, btw, for travel. (in fact it's a highly specialized lens that most of us don't need and are not well-served by.) The 24-70 isn't wide enough.</p>

<p>I think the 16-85 would be a great travel lens you can sell for near what you pay for it when you're done. If you have to have f2.8, the Tamron and the Nikon are both pretty well-regarded. Combine that with one of the ultra-wide options (interior? seriously consider the 11-16 from tokina if you can find one.</p>

<p>If you can afford it, the 70-200 is a no-brainer, great on DX, great on FX.</p>

<p>btw, what do you have now (other than the 70-200) and why wouldn't it work for this trip?</p>

<p>Depending on how wide you need I would go for either of the above. When I changed from DX to FX I changed out a few lenses that just did not fit anymore. I don't think buying FX wide for a current DX format works very well. For landscape a 16-85mm may work well also.</p>

<p>I love the 16-85 as a general purpose and landscape lens on my D90. I highly recommend it.<br>

I'd also say the new 16-35 would be a very good alternative if you insist on FX. I usually use the wider end of my 16-85 when I shoot landscapes, so the 16-35 might work perfectly. Both lenses have VR, take filters (I like my lenses protected and use polarizers frequently) and are relatively compact.</p>

<p>Looks to me like you answered your own question. In addition to the 14-24mm, add a 50mm prime used for very little outlay. Small, light, and f1.8. That should give you pretty good coverage.</p>

<p>When I was using my d300 for landscape I had my nikon 12-24 on it. As good as it gets. <br>

For DX, tokina 11-16 is on par with the nikon (according to most reviewers) plus that on the 15, 16 mm works on an FX as well without vignetting.<br>

When I bought the D700 i bought the 14-24 and I never looked back. The effect of the ultra wide is amazing and the crispiness of the images you get is almost unmatched (unless we put the distagon in the game). It is big and takes no filters but I learnt to live without them. Not to say that I never need them.<br>

Having said that, the choice of the new 16-35 might be the right option for you. You will struggle a little bit at the 24mm on your d300 for a while but later (assuming that it proves to be a very good lens) you ll be fine.</p>

<p>Nikos</p>

<p>None; I would buy three Zeiss primes and work with those. Throw in a PC Nikkor if possible.<br>

Seriously, no one here can tell how you should use your lenses and thus which you need. For portraits the choice would be clear, but landscapes can be shot in many different ways. I would say though that if you get a 14-24, the gap between that and the 70-200 can be covered with a single lens and in some places a wide is very handy (and stitching is not). But if you mainly shoot landscapes with teles, you can have something cheaper and smaller for the wide end.</p>

<p>using a 14-24 on DX makes no sense whatsoever. it's not that wide and can't use filters, so its outdoor effectiveness is questionable.</p>

<p>the tokina 12-24 is as good as the nikon 12-24; the 11-16 is even better. but if i was buying an ultrawide right now i'd look at the sigma 10-20/3.5. reviews say it's better than the nikon 10-24 at 10mm. you can sell it for 80% of what you paid when you upgrade to D700.</p>

<p>if i wanted a lens which would work on either DX or FX, i'd choose between 17-35/2.8 and 16-35/4 VR.</p>

<p>My recommendation is the 11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina AT-X. It's a wonderful lens </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am in the process of preparing to buy either a 14-24 2.8 with Cokin X Pro filter kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd like to meet the salesman who talked you into that deal. The 14-24 does not accept filters.</p>

<p>yes it does, with a little modification. The cokin x filter kit with universal adapter ring allows you to use square glass filters, including circular polarizers, on the 14-24. There is no vignetting on dx format, and on fx, there is none past 18mm. So, as I said, filters are a non-issue. I considered the tokina 11-16, as I will keep the d300 when I get a d700/d3, but I wanted the d700/d3 to be my wide angle setup, so dx wide angles are kind of useless when I upgrade. I have tried the nikon 10-24 and 12-24. The quality does not match the 14-24, especially not in lower light like sunrise/sunset. I guess more than anything I was looking for a few people who had this setup, and it looks like nilo has it and likes it. I thought about primes, but the iq of the 14-24 is supposed to parallel prime territory, as hard as that is to believe.</p>