Best lenses for N80 and landscape photography

[julie_wilson]

I have decided to purchase an N80. Now I have to decide what lenses

I want. The people at the photo shop said I should get a good zoom

lens but I keep reading online that prime lenses are the best. I

mostly want to do landscape photography and maybe some night time

photography of stars and the sky. I might try street photography,

but I am a little afraid that someone will try to snatch my camera.

We'll see. But I am definitely interested in nature and

landscapes. I've heard that starting with a 50mm f/1.8 is good,

then I should move on to a 24mm or 28mm and then an 85 or a 105.

What do you all think? I've also heard that a 35mm lens is good to

have. I am so confused. Then I read somewhere else that I should

start with a zoom lens so that way I can figure out what primes

would be best for me so I don't waste money on them. I'm sure I

would use a zoom lens for international travels so that way I

wouldn't have to carry around a million lenses (unless the trip was

specifically for taking photos). If I get a zoom lens, should I

start with a 28-200. It seems like the bigger the range, the less

sharp it is, but I have read a couple of good reviews on it. And

besides, I could really tell what lense would be ideal for me since

it has so many ranges. I just don't know what to do. I hate to

waste money on things I don't need. Thanks in advance for your

replies!

[goemon]

It's really hard to beat the 50mm f/1.8 for price/performance. So I'd start with that. If you

decide you want a zoom later, you're only out a little bit of money*.

<p>

I favor primes in my shooting; sure, they're sharper, but the reason I like them is they're

lighter on the camera, simplify my compositional burden somewhat and are usually

significantly faster. The only zoom I have that I really like is my 24-85 AF-S, which isn't a

bad choice and is on the cheap side, to boot. I recommend staying away from the 28

-200s; it's a major optical achievement

that they merely exist, but they're big and heavy and slow and do nothing particularly well.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system">Philip's

guide</a> to doing this suggests a 24mm or 28mm lens as a second lens. I bought the

24mm for my Nikon because it has CRC and the autofocus 28 doesn't, and that is

supposedly very useful. I later found

out that I have a lot of trouble using a 24mm but can use a 28mm fine. So I

recommend that you not casually dismiss the

28.

<p>

* Here "only out a little bit" is relative to other lenses and photo equipment

[jim_gifford]

<<I've heard that starting with a 50mm f/1.8 is good, then I should move on to a 24mm or 28mm and then an 85 or a 105. What do you all think? I've also heard that a 35mm lens is good to have. I am so confused.>>

 

The 50mm f/1.8 costs only about $100 and is terrific. So sure, get one of those. It is very useful when you want a compact, lightweight camera to carry around. It is great in low light. It gives you pictures that are sharp as a tack. Go for it. I like mine.

 

I also have the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 and recommend them as good, sharp Nikkors that also do not cost zillions of dollars. The autofocus 105mm lenses DO cost a lot.

 

You could also buy used lenses in good condition from www.keh.com and save hundreds of dollars on a nice set.

 

But let's look at your other point...

 

<<Then I read somewhere else that I should start with a zoom lens so that way I can figure out what primes would be best for me so I don't waste money on them.>>

 

That is fine advice.

 

<<I'm sure I would use a zoom lens for international travels so that way I wouldn't have to carry around a million lenses (unless the trip was specifically for taking photos).>>

 

Well okay then, that sounds like a decision!

 

<< If I get a zoom lens, should I start with a 28-200. It seems like the bigger the range, the less sharp it is, but I have read a couple of good reviews on it. And besides, I could really tell what lense would be ideal for me since it has so many ranges.>>

 

Well, the 28-200 lenses appear to be getting better as the years go by. There is one zoom in the Nikkor lineup that an awful lot of photo.net folks have and love: the AF-D 28-105mm. It covers five very common focal lengths (28-35-50-85-105) and would serve you well.

 

So my advice: start with the Nikkor 28-105mm for travel and the 50mm for lots of uses.

 

But you have many choices, and you'll get lots of advice, and there re many ways to skin this cat.

 

Be well,

[arnold_theisen1]

I agree with Jim. I started with the Nikkor 28-105 AF 3.5-4.5D zoom and haven't regretted it in more than three years. It is a fine lens and very versatile. Relatively compact and easy to handle. I've since added three more lenses, but the 28-105 is my go-to lens for most situations.

[chris haake]

I may well have been the one whom you had read advising new shooters to start with a zoom, and I stand by that advice. I think Jim's advice of the 28-105 is a great one, as you get a lot of useful range in that one lens. For travel, you should rarely if ever need longer than 105mm. For landscapes and such, one normally shoots with smaller apertures, and on these zoom lenses (where there might be lots of light fall-off, distortion and whatnot at wide apertures), stopping down often improves things quite a bit. I still do all my landscapes with my cheap kit zoom lens; wide open, it has some pretty noticeable barrel distortion, but closed down that's gone and it's surprisingly sharp (I accidentally got the edge of a building in a recent shot, and it's razor-straight because I was stopped down to f/13; if I'd been shooting wide open, it would have looked quite bowed).

 

If you're also looking to do lots of indoor shots without flash, the 50 f/1.8 or 35 f/2 would also be fantastic, and they can be had dirt-cheap (comparitively speaking) at the above-mentioned www.keh.com.

[jbq]

I'd start with a 50/1.8 and a 24-85. It's hard to justify not having a 50/1.8 in general. The zoom is sharp, and is wider than most, which is an advantage for landscapes. As you use it you'll know if there are any focal lengths that you like more than others, and you'll be able to buy the matching prime lenses.

 

If you want to move directly to prime lenses, 24-35-50-85 is a fantastic combination.

[ShunCheung]

Julie, we know you are interested in landscape photography, but you need to tell us what your budget is.

<P>

Since you are going for an N80, which is a very good choice IMO, I assume that your budget is a few hundred dollars. In that price range, the best lens for landscape photoraphy is the

<A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=207357&is=USA">

18-35mm AF zoom</A>. That one lens pretty much covers the entire wide angle range you'll ever need for landscape work. I personally use the more expensive 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S zoom and all of my wide primes simply sit on the shelf. The down size of the 18-35 is that it requires very large 77mm filters. However, should you get into digital photography in the future, as a lot of us do, a 18-35mm zoom will still be very useful.

<P>

If you want a prime instead, pretty much all landscape photographers in the Nature Forum agree that the 24mm/f2.8 is the best choice for your first wide angle; please keep in mind that agreement in photo.net forums is something very rare. :-)

<P>

Personally, I wouldn't buy any zoom with a huge range from wide to super tele such as the 28-200. Any 200mm at f5.6 is way too slow and such a huge zoom range involves too much optical compromises.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Picking lenses that work for you can be a "tough problem." It depends what you're looking for, how you shoot, what you're willing to carry. Plan to make a few mistakes along the way.

 

Like others suggested here, I got a 50/1.8 AFD and the results were just so sharp and contrasty, I never touched my kit zoom again.

 

Others like zooms, presumably because they use the better ones - but those are very expensive and kind of big and heavy. Personally, I like the "see" through particular focal lengths, and am pleased I can get great quality through a small kit of prime lenses.

 

Just for reference, my AF kit currently includes: 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8. I also have a few AI lenses: 28/2.8, 45/2.8-P, 105/2.5 and 135/2.8. I don't use them all :-) Like I said, mistakes :-)

 

I just shot a bunch of landscape pics on a vacation to Quebec, CA, and my most used focal lengths by far were: 50mm, 28mm and 135mm - roughly in that order.

 

- 50mm is a super versatile focal length. For nature landscape, I was surprised how much this was just the "right focal length."

 

- The 28mm gave me all the landscape "wide/near-far" that I needed - I didn't miss my 24mm at all, which is nice, but a much more specialized lens. The 28 was also a great "wide normal" like a 35mm lens.

 

- The 135 was perfect for selective focus landscape shots - cliffs, mountain tops and stuff like that.

 

All the mentioned lenses are available new/used at really reasonable prices. None of this is Nikon's premium priced glass (like the 85/1.4 and what not). Problem is that in AF, Nikon only has a "premo" option - the 135/2.

 

So here's my suggestion, for what it is worth:

 

- Get the 50/1.8. This is brutally sharp, pretty darn fast and super inexpensive.

 

- Then get a 28/2.8 AFD (most recent version) to cover both the "wide" (landscape) and "wide-normal" (daily duty) kind of shots. It's really versatile depending how you frame your shots. This is also pretty fast for a wide and a relatively good bargain (Nikon's faster 28/1.4 is something like $1500!).

 

- Then splurge and get Nikon's 80-200/2.8. Get the "cheaper" one around $800 or so. This provides great quality, darn good speed for a long zoom and should cover all your long needs, at least until you decide you need something more specialized like a primo 105 portrait lens or fast 85/1.4 or whatever.

 

Just what I'd do if I were building a Nikon AF kit all over again. Great quality, great focal length coverage and good prices.

 

Best of luck.

 

Scott

[ilkka_nissila]

I would get 50/1.8, 28/2.8 (be sure to get the current AF-D since the old AF is a poor lens), and 80-200/2.8D AF N. The primes are excellent and lightweight, but for tele landscape photography, a zoom can be very nice. A 20/2.8 can be added later if you want it.

[david_h._hartman]

Julie,<br>

<br>

I dont understand the choice of an N80 as AF is unnecessary

for landscape and that seems to be your primary interest. Also

the best value in lenses are the AI and AIS Nikkors. If an auto

focus camera is a priority then Id buy a Nikon F100. When

you consider the small savings buy purchasing a N80 against the

cost of travel its a poor decision.<br>

<br>

If you dont understand the quality difference in the

viewfinder and performance issues Id wait to buy a camera.

The N80 is a camera that folks on this page who say it is a good

choice have also made statements to the effect that it is a semi-disposable

camera. In other words if it needs repair you probably just throw

it out and buy another. It that the quality you are looking for?<br>

<br>

Comparing the price of a Nikon N80, $289.95 after rebate, to that

of a Nikon F100, $849.95 after rebate, the difference is $560.00.

If that is spread over just three years thats a little less

than $187.00 per year. Compare that to the cost of travel and

lodging and the N80 is poor economy. I believe you are being

pigeon holed as a non-serious buyer and snapshooter with little

commitment.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[lorenzo_ward1]

Frankly your question is too wide a subject for a precise answer. I would suggest you find a camera rental shop where you can rent some of the lenses you will want to test for consideration; it is the best way to avoid wasting money. On the above Iwould warn you against the AF24-85S; it is a great lens and sharp but displays barrel distortion at its wide settings, so it is great for snaps but your buildings may look a bit fat around the waist.

 

I would go the prime route and can only tell you how I do it. I carry around 2 lenses (28mm/1.4D & 85mm/1.8), they cover me for 90% of situations. The 28mm is an expensive piece of gear and I would suggest going for the excellent 24mm rather than the so-so 28mm/2.8. That lens can give you the foreground/beckground effect that is what wide-angles are ideal for. The 85mm is relatively cheap and will double up as a phenomenally good portrait lens; just remember to put the lens shade on; it come with the lens. Most importantly don't forget a steady tripod as the sharpness of your images will rocket upwards if you use one in connection with a fine grain slow transparency film (Velvia at EI40 or Provia F100). Money on a good lens is rarely wasted; my 85 lens is over 20 years old but I love it.

 

Get also a top-quality polariser (Nikon are fine)

[lachaine]

Look, I love prime lenses best, but since you're so undecided, and you may not have the experience with various focal lengthss to go by, you don't want to spend a fortune on a bunch of AF prime Nikkors. Except for the 50/1.8D, they aren't exactly cheap, and, no matter how inexpensive a lens is, what't the point of having it if it just sits in your camera bag because it's not really the right focal length for anything you do. Many people recommend a 50mm, but few use it. They just like to know they have it. There is no "best" lens for anything. Choice of focal length depends on many things. So, I think your best bet is to just get a zoom lens. That way, you have all the focal lengths you need, and you can use them and experiment with them to your heart's content. Not that you lose much sharpness anyway, but why be so concerned with minute differences in sharpness anyway? Get a 28-105D and you can have fun with macro photography too. Of course, you could just get the cheaper kit zoom that comes with the F80 until you decide what suits you best. A 28-100 is a good range. That way, you won't be spending money on things you don't really need.

[ccfutbol]

I've got an F5 and an N80. Shoot slides in the F5 and print film in the N80. Lenses: 24, 35, 50, 105macro, 300F4"S", 28-105, 70-300. I enjoy shooting landscapes. Got the fixed focals to have quality and low light ability. Macro lens is for macro, portraits and landscape - super high quality. To be honest, with all the thinking about quality, ... when I'm in the field I find the zooms so much more user friendly. Order of use, most frequent to least frequent: 28-105, 24, 70-300, 105, 50, 35, 300. BTW, ... the macro 105 is expensive but I find that I use it a lot when I'm walking around looking for a vantage point to shoot landscapes --my eyes don't just look out, they look down for photo opportunities.

 

The ability to isolate parts of a scene makes the zooms very useful. A large format photographer can crop without losing much quality, but I feel I have to use all the available film surface. The cheaper zooms do very well when stopped down to f11 and f16 -- the sweet spot on these zooms. And they are smaller and lighter than the pro zooms. The 70-300 isn't considered the greatest, but with it I have been able to reach out and isolate scenery, producing pictures that I, and many friends, have admired. At the long end, ... it passes for a wildlife lens but it really isn't at it's best there. Not having pro zooms, or super telephotos, is also related to the budget I had for getting into photography.

 

When I got started, I was getting advice out of John Shaw books and his landscape work was done with a 50-135 and the fixed focal lengths I mentioned above. At some point, I read that his favorite lens for landscape was the 24.

 

Equipment technology and it's impact on technique change very rapidly now. You are practically guaranteed to be behind the times in a year or two after your purchase, ... but I find I still like what my equipment produces -- I'm still learning how to get the most from it. At the same time, ... I'm very comfortable with what experience has taught me. Best wishes, Julie CC

[ShunCheung]

Speaking of <A HREF="http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.htm">

John Shaw's books</A>, if you are new to landscape photography, I too highly recommend them. Shaw has written 6 books and there is a lot of overlap amongst them, so I would just get the latest one:

<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0817440593/wwwjohnshawphcom/102-8596234-8014568">

<I>Nature Photography Field Guide</I></A>. While you are on John Shaw's web site, you can take a look at the equipment he uses. Like me, today Shaw uses pretty much all high-end zoom lenses. The 17-35 AF-S is his everyday landscape lens. That was why I suggested the less expensive 18-35 AF, which is a bit slower but by far less expensive. For landscape work, it provides a lot of flexibility at a moderate cost.

<P>

In the film era, the rule of thumb is to spend most of your budget on lenses and save on bodies. I would say your camera body should be no more than 1/4 to 1/3 of your budget. Therefore, unless Julie has $3000, there is no point to spend $900 on an F100 for landscape work, especially when we are rapidly transitioning to digital. Julie is much better off getting some good lenses. Personally, I have had a D100 for two years now; the D100 is primarily based on the N80 but with a a lot more delicate electronics for digital. I have taken my D100 into the tropical rain forest in northern Australia and well inside the Arctic Circle in Norway. While my own body was pretty uncomfortable under those extreme conditions, my D100 never had any problems. Today, my D100 is my primary Nikon body while I hardly ever use my F5 and F100 any more. That is why I am completely comfortable recommending consumer-grade SLRs such as the N80 and D100.

[jeff h.]

Julie, welcome to the world of sleepless nights spent tossing and turning while pondering life's weighty questions: 50mm, f1.4 or f1.8? 20mm, 24mm, 28mm? Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Medium Format? My wife got an N80 after I had spent years lugging various Nikons around (F, F3, N90s, F100, EM, FM2) and more lenses than I care to remember buying. Now, if I need to capture a cute kid-pic, hop on a plane, go on a family vacation, or take a picture I know will turn out very well without much effort (or turn out great with a little effort), I grab...<drumroll>...the N80 with a 28-105D lens. The light weight, grid pattern in the viewfinder for landscape/architectural shots, sophisticated metering, built-in Speedlight flash, wide range of useable focal lengths, macro capability, and handy 62mm filter size make this a great user combination. You will eventually find that choice of film and processing lab makes more difference than choice of lens (focal lengths and composition being equal). If you spend a couple of extra dollars per roll, you will get better results from the many "professional" films out there as compared to the cheaper "consumer" films. Real black & white film will be far better than the b&w that can be processed at a 1-hour color lab. A pro level fast film will make up for one or two f-stops in lens speed. A good lab will help your photography evolve. Once you get comfortable with all the information, then you can start to invest in prime lenses for specific tasks (e.g., f/1.4's for low or ambient lighting, 18 to 28 for landscapes, 28 to 50 for street-style, macro primes for closeups, 85 to 105 for portraits, 200mm-plus for sports and wildlife, etc.). Good luck!

[ky2]

A few years ago I asked a similar question. Many people answered, but one got it right: if you want to shoot landscape, forget 35mm. Get an entry level Medium Format system; the YashicaMat 124(G), for example can be had for roughly $100, and will blow away anything that is 35mm. Yes, the lens is fixed and is only normal (~50mm on 35mm), the composition is square, but this system is much more suitable for landscape-- a big focusing screen, a built in loup, and a generous negative.

[ky2]

.. Given your other concerns (street shooting, star trails)-- both are easier with a TLR (=124G): At the street, you can shoot your camera at your waist, looking down-- you subject will not even know he's being captured. As for star trails, etc: a mechanical-linked shutter will always be better at long exposures-- where AE does not matter anyway due to film reciprocity failure, etc...

 

I'm not trying you re-educate you, only to show a not-so-obvious, cheaper, and more versatile solution.. The N80 is a great camera-- but it's not the best tool for landscape.

[mskovacs]

No doubt I agree a medium format TLR can be an awesome thing (I have a Rolleiflex) but its not really a flexible enough camera if you want a single camera to do it all IMO. Large format, better yet if you can live with the pace and cost per shot.

 

I am for the most part a prime shooter as well with my Nikon 35mm, but I have a zoom in the 80-200 range that works great as a landscape and a macro lens. The key with even the cheapest zooms is to stop them down to f/5.6-11. For landscape work with a tripod, this is a piece of cake. If I had one, I would not hesistate using a 28-105 in this manner. Don't discount the telephoto side of landscape photography. For some reason, a lot on photo.net are fixated on wide angle lenses whereas I find myself reaching for 200mm or more when shooting some landscapes. The cheaper zooms will punish you with distortion for some subjects like architecture so keep that in mind as well.

[ShunCheung]

In landscape photography, we frequently use circular polarizers and graduated neutral-density (GND) filters. When your shooting lens is different from the lens you compose with, it is difficult to use those filters, especially the GND. For that reason, I wouldn't recommend a TLR for landscape work. You need either a SLR or a view camera. Moreover, a spot meter is critical for landscape work as well.

 

For a beginner, medium-format for landscape is merely a waste of money on film and processing. When you are a good photographer and need to make large prints, medium format becomes useful.

[eric_birdsall]

If you're thinking of a single zoom lens, you might want to consider the 24-120. For four years now, I have used it (the older version) as my all-purpose travel lens. I just returned from a month in Scotland, and only a few times did I really need anything faster or longer. I find that I use the wide end a great deal; 28mm often is not wide enough. The primes will be better (but often not much better, at least to my eye), but the convenience of a single lens, especially for travel, is hard to beat. If you add a circular polarizer and a skylight 1A filter, you're good to go.

[paulr]

First, I am glad to hear you will be using film.

 

I shoot mostly primes as I photograph a lot on the street and people.

My favorite Nikon lenses are the 28mm F1.4 and the 105mm F2.

 

When I travel to Asia and other places I carry my Leica M6 and M7 where I use a 28mm 35mm and a 50mm. These are all f2.0 lenses. But I am not a landscape and nature photographer. (Don't get me wrong I love animals) I do not like lugging around big SLR's any longer when I travel.

 

If you must go with zooms go with the 17-35mm and the 80-200 ED-IF AFS

That 80-200 adds a lot of weight though. Primes are usually much sharper. However the two zooms I mentioned are higher end and are very good. I do not care for those zooms referred to as travel zooms.

 

Confused? Just start somewhere with one or two lenses and shoot a lot of film around your home first and use the camera in manual mode as much as possible. In the end you will "migrate" toward a favorite lens or two as your style develops.

 

How about a 600mm for around $8K for a few of those bear shots you will be taking? You did say nature photography didn't you?