Landscapes w/d7000-itching for new lens

<p>Tokina 11-16? Sigma 10-20? Something else? I currently have the kit 18-105, 35/1.8 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Opinions or suggestions?</p>

<p>Thanks, Renee</p>

<p>Personally, I'd go for the Tokina 11-20/2.8 (f/2.8 isn't needed for landscapes) or the Tokina 12-28/4. Or if you want really wide (often not a good thing for landscapes), Sigma 8-16.</p>

I'll second the

recommendation to consider

Tokina's 11-20mm f/2.8. I

bought one a short while ago

and am well impressed with

its image quality. Tamron's

older (non VC) 17-50mm f/2.8

delivers excellent quality as

well if you prefer something

longer.

 

Personally I've never bought

into the dogma that you need

a wide lens for landscapes.

IME, anything much wider than

17mm on DX needs care in

framing and choice of subject

if there isn't going to be an

excess of empty foreground or

sky in the picture.

<p>Thanks for the recommendations - just bought the 11-20. I've found myself wishing for wider on a few occasions so hey-I won't know for sure til I try it!</p>

<p>Not all ultra-wide landscape shots are great, in fact if there's not something big in the foreground, they usually are pretty lifeless.<br /><br />You actually MIGHT be better off with normal wide to short tele ranges for most real usable landscape, jus' sayin'...<br /><br />That said, if you KNOW what you're doing with ultrawides, you can make magic happen.<br /><br />Given what you have, if you're happy with it, the Tokina 11-20 is the one I'd get, but you might live at the LONGER end of that range for really good photos than you think you will...</p>

<p>Having second thoughts now regarding the 11-20 so I cancelled the order. I know f/2.8 isn't necessary for sweeping landscapes but there might be cases where I want to shoot wide open and isolate one flower, etc. I have the 35/1.8 but have basically ignored it since I bought it for some reason. Perhaps I'll force myself to get to know it some before I make a purchase, but I'm thinking the 17-50 or 18-35 ART lens might be a more useful way for me to satisfy the new-gear desire.</p>

<p>OR- I may just try to find the willpower to resist any new gear right now since my real desire is to upgrade from my d7000. With one iffy card slot, I still intend to use it till I can't- but who knows when that will be!</p>

<p>18-35/1.8 Art would be a killer lens on a d7000. i personally like wide lenses, but i agree you dont NEED an ultrawide to shoot landscapes. 11-20 is a good choice IF you will use the 2.8 for interiors/low-light AND you will shoot at the wide end. in my experience the Tamron 28-75 is a pretty good all-arounder, so i'm not sure you even need anything else to do landscapes. the question then becomes, what lens will add to your photographic capabilities? i wouldnt recommend another prime if you're not using the one you have already, but adding primes to a zoom-heavy selection is a good strategy, in general. </p>

<p>I personally like medium to tele focal lengths for landscapes, and for the DX format, I'd love to try the Sigma 50-100mm/1.8 ART -- that and the 18-35/1.8 ART for an unbeatable 2-lens kit. </p>

<p>Any lens can be a "landscape" lens. The Tokina is excellent but ultrawides take a bit of practice to use effectively. There are situations where they can be dramatic. Remember that landscapes are usually best shot at f8. Most important thing for landscapes is probably a tripod.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

I agree about the tripod. I do have a CF Manfrotto

with an Acratech ball head. I'm thinking what I really

need is a trip! Luckily I have one coming up.