best light telephoto zoom for landscape (manual or AF(S))

[tele_tele]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am looking for a light solution - a light telephoto zoom for landscape photography (means stopped down to f/8 or f/11 most of the time). Could be a old manual classic, AF or AF-S lens.<br>

Features I need:<br>

-light (usually slower lens)<br>

-flare resistant (sunset, sunrise)<br>

-minimal distortion<br>

-sturdy built<br>

Any input and experience is welcome. Thx</p>

[Matt Laur]

What sort of focal length(s)? FX or DX?

[tele_tele]

<p>Anything 50-80mm and more. DX.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>I use the 75-150E; it's light, small(ish) and sharp; good at those apertures; and well built compared with new plastic if not something like the heavier MF 80-200. On DX would give you ca 110-225. Many smaples have sloppy zoon creep; I just use an elastic band round mine if needed to hold the zoom in place. Cheap, too.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Second 75-150mm</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Third 75-150.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>f8 or f11 most of the time? I'd get the 70-300 VR if you're camera supports G lenses.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>If you can do AF-D lenses I cannot speak highly enough of the old AF 70-210D. Not nearly so heavy as the 80-200 variations. Among manual focus lenses, they (respondents above) are all correct, you can't do better in the category you're looking at then the 75-150 Series E. Finally, not as good as any named here but still decent and quite light is the DX 55-200mm G VR. The AF 70-210D will cost you about $125 on eBay; the Series E 75-150 perhaps a little bit less; the VR 70-300 is going for 400-450 used and $550 or so new. And the 55-200mm is $225 new, maybe as much as 75 less used. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The problem is "sturdy built". Sturdy build adds to the weight of a given lens, so how sturdily built do you mean? Most "pro" lenses are built to withstand years of heavy use and abuse and use more metal instead of plastic making them heavier. Most good consumer lenses are built to withstand the use most amateurs give them. I'm not familiar with specific Nikon E lenses, but I remember they were aimed more at the amateur market.</p>

<p>I think that unless you're very hard on your gear, good consumer lenses should hold up well. That said, the Nikon 55-200 VR is very good optically and relatively light and flare resistant. I don't know about its distortion. The 70-300 VR is very good, but not light weight. The new 55-300 VR is lighter and should be available in early or mid September.</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>I use a lens that fits all of your criteria except weight: the 50-135mm 3.5 AIS. It is a sharp lens with great contrast. It is not light, but it is very sturdy. I use it for landscape photography all the time. The 70-150mm E would probably be better for your purposes, but if you see a 50-135mm for a good price, you might try it.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>18-135, 55-200 or the new 55-300 sound like they will work for your needs. They are not the most robust lenses, but if you take care of them they will last.</p>

[rolubich]

<p>Another vote for the 50-135 Ais, at f/8 is sharp on FX in the corners over the full range.<br>

This is at 50mm f/8 on D700:<br>

<a href="http://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=147524">http://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=147524</a></p>

[hiro]

<p>I've owned all the lenses above. All great recommendations. I'd like to add the 80-200 4.5-5.6. Very light and a pretty good performer.</p>