Lens suggestions...

[josheudowe]

I use a D300 for mostly landscape photography and people (my kids, mostly). I've been using the Nikkor 18-200 as my one and only lens

for the past year, but I'd like to expand a bit and pick up 1 or 2 new lenses that are really fantastic for landscape shots. Can anyone

recommend what they feel would be the most appropriate in addition to my 18-200?

 

I've always found that my 18-200 works for the situations that I shoot and I do use the entire range. However, it's a jack of all trades

master of none type lens. It's time that I get some dedicated ones.

 

Thanks -

[michael_darnton1]

The first lens I bought for my D300 after the kit lens (18-135) that I got with the camera was the 10-20mm Sigma zoom, and I have never been unhappy that I did that. In your case, it would give you seamless coverage from 10-200, without much overlap.

[joe_a2]

What part of landscape photography do you think you'll concentrate on? Wide shots that encompass foreground and distant objects? Or isolation shots where you single out elements in the environment?

 

We'll also need a budget.

[bwcombs]

Yes a budget would help narrow the ideas. I've heard very good things about the Sigma 10-20mm. I use the Tokina 12-24mm and have been very happy with it. One lens you should add is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. It's not wide for your landscapes, but fast for your kid shots and low light. It's very affordable and sharp.

 

The new 14-24mm Nikon is very good, but expensive and that exposed front element had me nervous as heck when I was shooting a demo model.

[Peter_in_PA]

Identify what you don't like about your lens. Knowing that will help you decide where to go next. Don't buy any new

lenses just because you read somewhere that they are better, until you need something to satisfy a "gap" in what you

have.

 

I would get a wide zoom, like the 12-24 from either Nikon or Tokina or the 11-16 from Tokina or the Sigma 10-20, next.

BUT, landscapes are not necessarily always shot "wide". Most that I've shot are from 24mm to about 70mm on my 18-

200. My ultra-wide stuff is usually "effect-y" stuff. I'd also have a 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f2 as well. (I have the former and

want the latter.)

 

Also, how big do you print? If you print no bigger than 8x10 or the occasional 16x20 or 11x14, you might not notice the

difference between what you have and a "better" lens. Certainly for 8x10s you are set.

[drfuzz3899]

20mm f/2.8 AIS comes to mind.

 

 

but that's just me

[josheudowe]

Excellent points and suggestions, thanks. I shoot a lot of landscape that varies from wide shots with elements in the

foreground and distance to closeups of one specific object, so I do need the range. In terms of budget, I'm not really

worried about what I spend - more interested and concerned with top quality. I'm also not the type to carry 4-5

lenses so I'm looking to buy 1-2 more that cover the 10mm up to 400mm. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the 18-200,

but sometimes it's sharp and dead on and sometimes it feels like it's not as good as it could be. Just my opinion,

but it seems to be better at the 120+ than it is in the 18-120 range.

 

As for enlargements, 16x20 is as large as I've gone to date.

 

I've always been a Nikon guy - from the early N65, N8008 and F100 days to the D80, D100 and now to the D300. I

also like to shoot low light and thus have thought about buying a D700, but thought that I'd wait to see what the next

model, probably the D800 offers.

 

Anyway, i'm open to all suggestions. Sigma is a good call, but is Sigma really as good and sharp as the Nikkor

lenses?

[carl_becker2]

Unlimited budget and three zooms from 10-400? The Sigma 10-20mm is the only one going to 10mm. The Nikkor 200-400mm f4 should give the best results in that range. To replace your 18-200mm I suggest the 16-85mm and 70-200mm Nikkors but that is four zooms and some quite heavy. I don't think its the best possible but the Sigma 10-20 plus Nikkor 16-85 and Nikkor 80-400 give you the required range. Maybe a tripod will give you better results then a new lens. You might want to check out what Bjorn has the say:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/ about Nikkors.

[eric_arnold]

if you want less distortion than and more consistancy than what your 18-200 is currently providing you with, you're gonna have to split up the focal range. a 12-24/24-70/70-200 nikkor kit would be the cat's meow, that is, if your kids can do without orthodontist trips and a college fund.

 

but practically any lens can be a landscape lens. it's quite literally all about perspective. i've found a 'normal' prime like the sigma 30 or nikkor 35 is good for urban landscapes. for outdoorsy stuff i like the reach of the nikkor 70-300 ED (the VR version is supposedly better).

 

in your case, i'd go with an ultrawide first, as that will make the biggest immediate difference.it's always good to cover a range you dont have covered before overlapping.

 

here's a tokina 12-24 shot just to give you an idea of the wideness at 12mm; 10 or 11 mm would obviously be even wider, but i find the long end of the tokina (20-24) makes it more suited for occasional people shots as well as landscapes. in other words, it's not completely useless as a walkaround lens<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

here's a 70-300 shot<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

...and a shot with the sigma 30...<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

"I'm looking to buy 1-2 more that cover the 10mm up to 400mm."

 

hmm, tall order there, as no one makes a 10-400mm lens, the closest probably being the 50-500 "bigma."

 

but if you want to go from 10 to 400 in three lenses, get the sigma 10-20 (it's the only DX zoom that goes to 10), an 80-400 (both nikon and tokina make these), and maybe a nikon 16-85, and you're there... of course if you have unlimited budget, go for the sigma 120-300/2.8+ 1.4xTC or the nikkor 200-400. and pop them on a D3 while you're at it.

[lex_jenkins]

Josh, your selection of favorite photos on your portfolio indicates you appreciate landscape photography, which you've confirmed in a follow up statement.

 

You'd probably enjoy the best wide angle prime or zoom you can afford. Get one that's well corrected to minimize distortion for straight horizons, and flare resistance since many photos will present difficult lighting. Don't worry about speed - you'll seldom need an f/2.8 lens for landscapes since it's usually done from a tripod mounted camera.

 

Before committing to an ultrawide zoom, check the EXIF data for your existing photos to determine your tendencies. Some folks prefer a wider view, some don't. I tend to use only a moderate wide angle to "normal" focal length for landscapes, so I wouldn't get much use from an ultrawide for this sort of thing, tho' I would use one extensively for event and people photography.

[Peter_in_PA]

Lex says... "you'll seldom need an f/2.8 lens for landscapes since it's usually done from a tripod mounted camera." THIS

IS TRUE... BUT... I find with my Tokina 11-16 f2.8 that I can get great results at f5.6 and be two stops down from

maximum. If I were using the 12-24 I'd only be one stop down, and if I were using the Sigma and the Tamron, I'd be a

half to no stops down. So... I'm much more wide open with the lens at its sweet spot.

 

In any case. if I were a more NORMAL person, I'd get the Sigma 10-20.

 

But do look carefully at your exif data as Lex suggests. Follow up: How often are you printing at 16 x 20? If it's a lot...

spring for great glass!

[josheudowe]

Can you recommend specific lenses?

 

I tend not to shoot ultra-wide shots, the 10-16mm range. 18mm, to date, has been enough for me. However, never having a lens with the capability of going wider, I can’t say that I wouldn’t use it more.

 

My typical shots are 24mm to 180mm. Again, I love the 18-200 that I’m using, but again, it seems that I’m not yielding the very best results that I can. I’m thinking about the Nikkor 80-400 to give me the distance that I would like, but still need to cover this range with 1-2 other lenses. Although the 2.8 is probably a waste of money because yes, I’m usually on a tripod, I would spend the extra bucks to help out that much more with low light situations. I’m not always carrying my tripod with me, so I want to make these next purchases as low-light friendly as possible. Again, why I considered the D700, but decided that it’s not THAT much better that it’s worth such a significant upgrade.

 

Also, when you (Peter) say “spring for good glass” – what are you specifically referring to?

 

Thanks!

[Peter_in_PA]

Josh,

 

In short, good glass is anything that gets a rating of 4, 4.5 or 5 from this guy, http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

(which your 18-200 does! 4).

 

If I were you, based on what you say, I think I'd get the 16-85 VR, the 80-400, then see if I really need anything wider. I

find the 16mm end of my 11-16 MUCH more useful than the 18mm end of my 18-200, so I think that the 16-85 (which I

was skeptical about at first) would be cool for you. Then add some fast primes at the lengths that you would use it.

Yeah, you can get some big fast 2.8 lenses, but you wanna carry them around? That's the big issue to me.

 

Incidentally you say of the 18-200 that "Just my opinion, but it seems to be better at the 120+ than it is in the 18-120

range." That is the opposite experience of most of us! Perhaps you should have your lens looked at.

 

Then I'd wait on an ultra-wide until I really need it.

[josheudowe]

Let me ask you all this... would the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 yield significant low-light benefits over my Nikon 18-200? When

hiking, I'm ALWAYS in situations where it's just too dark to hold the camera, but I don't have my trip with me. I'd love to

think that a great 2.8 would be my answer (along with a high ISO).

[Peter_in_PA]

Josh,

 

At the wide end, it's only a half-stop faster. At the long end, it's more. The 18-200 is f4.8 at 50mm for instance.

 

A better solution would be, imho, to get a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 to add to what you have. the 1.8 is so small and light and has

FANTASTIC image quality for only a little over a hundred bucks! (another great alternative is the 35mm f2.) I think the 17-

55 is a bit of a beast for hiking.