Landscape Lens Upgarde from 24-85 f2.8-f4

[yellowwoodguiding]

I am venturing into trying to make a profit with photography and the only possible weak link in my lens setup is for

landscapes. I use a Nikon 24-85 f2.8 - f4 on a D300 and I sometimes wish I could go a bit wider, but much more

often I'm in the 35 - 60mm 35mm equiv length of the lens for my mountain photography. The CA and Distortion of the

24-85 doesn't bother me.

 

I always shot from a tripod, and with a release, have cokin P singh-ray filters, and weight is a huge matter to me. The

24-85 is 1.2 lbs. The 17-55 is 2 lbs.

 

So my question would be knowing my situation and requirements I want to upgrade my lens to maximize sharpness

and better color rendition / Contrast, and since this is for profit the improvement over the 24-85 should be much much

better.

 

I've started to look at the 17-55, 16-85, and maybe Sigma's options. What lens should I consider?

[dcraton]

With the crop factor on a D300 (I have one), 24 really isn't wide. If you are wanting wide, there are a variety of zooms and primes that will work on a DX format depending upon your budget.

 

So, how fat is the wallet?

 

Nikon 12-24mm/4 is a nice lens. I have the 17-55mm and really don't use it for landscape shots. There are the other Nikon f2.8 lenses both prime and zoom that go wide (down to 14mm), but those will cost you--great lenses.

 

Though slow, but my copy is very sharp, I opted for the Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6. Does a great job for me.

 

It will boil down to your budget as there are several options for you if you want to go wide in a DX format.

 

Sigma at 10mm of a friend of mine playing in a club in Florida. What a life. . .

 

Good luck<div></div>

[dcraton]

Sunset shot on a pod with the Sigma.<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

for landscapes, i would get a wide-angle before upgrading the 24-85. i'm not convinced you NEED to replace that,

and most of the other reasonably-priced options won't necessarily be significantly better than what you have now for

what you want to do.

 

here's what bjorn rorslett says about the 24-85: "The design uses aspherical elements but no ED glass, giving it an

excellent image rendition with high contrast and vividly saturated colours...Central image sharpness is excellent and

by f/8, you obtain surprisingly sharp images that hold their quality down to f/16. Despite the lack of ED glass, colour

fringing is negligible in most situations....Results obtained at 85 mm showed just a trace of softness into the corners

at f/4, and stopping the lens down a little more resulted in remarkably sharp images with all the snap and bite one

could ask for."

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-85f2.8

 

bjorn rates the 16-85 the same as the 24-85, but also notes: "At the widest setting, there is modest barrel distortion

but huge amounts of corner darkening (vignetting), the latter needs massive stopping down to clear, to beyond f/8

when the lens is set to 16 mm... Image detail, contrast, and colour saturation, are all good and in the peak range

from f/5.6 to f/11 (wide end) to f/8-f/11 (long end), excellent image quality can be acquired."

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS16-85EDGVR

 

while the 16-85 is a better overall range for landscapes, both seem to exhibit similar performance, and the 16-85 is

one full stop slower at the long end. so considering the relatively high cost of a slow variable aperture zoom, you

might not see a tremendous improvement from what you have now, especially since VR isn't needed for tripod shots.

 

if you have the cash, the 24-70/2.8 would be the ultimate choice, but it doesn't get you any wider unless you also

plunk down the ducats for a FX body.

 

the 17-55 for landscapes? that's not the ideal application for the wedding/event workhorse, although you could do so

if you insisted. but if you're stopping down to f/8-f/11 anyway for more DoF, the 2.8 is of little use, and you're giving

up a lot of range on the long end. not that it's a bad lens, it's just that for $1200 you could probably get more bang for

those bucks.

 

honestly, the IQ on that one isn't leaps and bounds above the sharp and contrasty tamron 17-50 which is 1/3rd of the

price, although the 17-55 does have a better build--which means more weight, not necessarily a plus for mountain

use--and AF-S, which you don't really need for still subjects.

 

i'd recommend the tokina 12-24 as a good companion to your 24-85. it's just as good IQ-wise as the nikkor 12-24

and may even have a better build. it's also only $500, which would leave $700, which could get you a nice light prime

in your preferred range (which will give you better IQ than a zoom) like the 28/2.8 or the 35/2 PLUS the tamron 17-50

or the tamron 90 macro or a nice carbon fiber tripod.<div></div>

[Two23]

The OBVIOUS choice is either the Nikon 24mm f2.8 PCE or the Nikon 45mm f2.8 PCE. I am absolutely stunned it hasn't even been mentioned yet it is so obvious for landscapes.

 

 

Kent in SD

[eric_arnold]

yeah, that's an obvious choice -- if you have $1800 to spend on a prime. you could get a used 28mm PC for about $700, though that wouldn't get the OP any wider on DX than what he already has.

[Two23]

The 28mm PC will do virtually nothing for a landscape photographer. I have one--bought it for architectural shots. Have to have the PCE's movements.

 

 

Kent in SD

[cabrabesol]

Instead of changing I would consider to add (to stay low on the budget) the Nikon 18-35 mm ED-IF

f/3.5 - 4.5 D. It is very nice and around f 8//11/14 it really shines, it has a relatively low cost and you can find some used. A the wide end it also has a nasty field curvature so be very careful while computing DOF with off center foregrounds.

 

However in the mountains I usually find it a bit to long at the wide end. Lately I have started using a lot a Sigma 10/20 with good results. See <a target="_blank" href="http://onlandscape.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween-landscapes.html">http://onlandscape.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween-landscapes.html</a>. All have been taken with the Sigma. The sigma too could be found used for reasonable prices.

[rayyeager]

Add the Nikon 12-24mm F4 ... Ray.

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>I am venturing into trying to make a profit with photography and the only possible weak link in my lens setup is for landscapes.</i>

<p>

Making a profit from landscape or nature photography is the "weak link", not your equipment. You need to be creative and technically competent to produce work better than your potential clients can do themselves. More important you need a business model and acumen to reach potential customers and entice them to buy. Who knows, you might join the incredibly slim ranks of those who succeed in this endeavor.

<p>

Although small-format cameras have made huge advances in image quality, medium or large format cameras are still the best way to get big enlargements, which set you apart from the dilittantes.

<p>

If you prefer to stay with the Nikon, then the 24-70/2.8 would be the best choice for landscapes, followed by a 17-35/2.8. They are very sharp and have negligible chromatic aberation and very little distortion. In a world tending to FX cameras, it doesn't make much sense to buy another DX lens. You have all the time you need to swap lenses when shooting landscapes.

<p>

It's good to have a couple of prime lenses for shooting into the sun or against a bright background. I carry an ancient 55/2.8 AIS micro, which I use a lot. I haven't found a wide angle lense as good as my 17-35, but the Zeiss ZF 35 is a good candidate. If you can afford it (and have a strong back or a mule), use primes for any lens longer than 200mm.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I would say something in film like at least a 6x7mm but for landscape maybe wider looks better like either 6x9mm or 6x12mm with a tilt/shift movement if you include structures in your photos. I like the look of almost pano proportions for landscapes since it lets the view breathe. An old technical camera if you need movement or maybe a Fuji rangefinder in 6x9 for wide shots, you can scan them with a flatbed scanner for digital input.

[kohanmike]

I have the Nikon 24-85 and I think it's great, but I also use a Tokina 12-24 for wide stuff and that one is great as well. Absolutely

recommend it.

[philippartridge]

Well, I actually read the post and don't want to lecture you on anything or suggest you buy a boat anchor 24-70/2.8! I do just what you likely do, shoot in difficult high country, and I use medium format plus a D200. Surprisingly to some, who perhaps have a very different definition of 'landscape', digital has its uses in the back country. I can suggest what I use: a 16-86VR, and a 28/2 AIS. Weight is ~450g for the zoom, and ~350g for the 28mm.

 

Like you I shoot moderate wides and wide normals most of all, the 12-24 lenses (one of which I have) are a little cheesy unless you get the body very level, and the temptation is to use the wide end purely for effect. The 16-85 got a much kinder reaction from other trustworthy sources than from Mr R, many rate it as the equal of the so-called 'pro' 17-55/2.8. Very sharp...all other 'defects' are software-fixable and minor in any case. What type of person shoots at 16mm wide open? In any case, tests indicate excellent IQ in shooting apertures...the Tokina is another lead weight at around 560g - ugh.

[ryan_hamilton]

My vote for the Sigma 10-20

 

[http://virtualgta.com/TurtleBayResort.jpg]<div></div>