D7000 with 24-70mm ?

[photomarche]

<p>Hi,<br>

I need some advice on lenses for landscape photography.<br>

My gear is:</p>

<ul>

<li>nikon D7000</li>

<li>10-24mm (DX)</li>

<li>35mm prime (DX)</li>

<li>50mm prime</li>

<li>70-300mm</li>

<li>Manfrotto 055XB</li>

</ul>

<p>I am happy with the 10-24mm, however in many situations I found it too wide for landscapes, especially when I want to capture details.<br>

At the moment, I keep changing the lenses between the 35mm and 50mm… it is not very practical to do this outside, considering also that I have to remove the filters holder and add it back after changing the lens. Also the light does not wait for me to change the lenses :)<br>

I would like a more versatile solution.<br>

Now, I am considering the Nikon 24-70mm in place of the two prime lenses, to use mainly for landscapes on the tripod.<br>

I would still have to change dometimes between the 10-24mm and the 24-70mm, but I guess this is inevitable.<br>

I have strong reservations about buying DX lenses, only because I want to go full frame in one year or two, otherwise the 17-55 could be a solution. <br>

I also think that the d7000 is unbalanced with the 24-70mm.<br>

What it your experience? Any comments would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think that 24-70 is not as good a range on DX as 16/17/18 - 50/55/what-have-you. 24mm is not truly wide, and if you're anything like me (and most DX users it seems) you will find yourself doing a LOT of lens changes between your 24-70 and 10-24.</p>

<p>If it were me, with what you have, I'd get the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma equivalent (the Tamron seems to get more love around photo circles, though). I'd keep the primes for when you NEED or WANT to shoot blow f2.8. I find both of those lenses really useful in my kit, especially indoors.</p>

<p>If you are concerned about going FX "someday", buy used so that you can sell it for near what you paid for it. Get FX lenses when you get FX cameras (except telephoto).</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Two random thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>While I don't do a lot of landscapes, it seems to me that a zoom would be extremely useful for that type of work in order to fill the frame with just what you want given the impediments to "zooming with your feet" imposed by the distances involved, waterfalls, quicksand, poisonous snakes, etc.</li>

<li>The 24-70 is such a wonderful lens that it's worth seizing any excuse to get it.</li>

</ul>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If it is purely for landscape, I would not get the 24-70 f/2.8, really. Nor the 17-55 f/2.8, for that matter.<br>

The reason I would not take either of the f/2.8 zooms for landscape work is the fact that I wouldn't be using f/2.8. Or f/4. So, their main advantage, and the main reason why they are expensive, large, heavy and having a limited zoomrange would go completely unused. To me, that makes both these (otherwise excellent!) lenses quite bad value for money for landscape work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have strong reservations about buying DX lenses, only because I want to go full frame in one year or two, otherwise the 17-55 could be a solution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I think that's where you limit yourself unnecessarily here. If/when you you to FX, you can sell the lens together with your D7000. If it's a good lens, it will keep its value. And in the meantime, you'd have the right lens for your current camera.<br>

To me, it makes no sense making a compromise now on something that may happen in the future. A FX lens would always make the compromise of starting at 24 or 28 mm, which makes for a lot of lens changes. I really rather have a good DX lens then (and I am just as you considering to go from DX to FX, bought a third DX lens this year despite that).<br>

In my view, the best landscape lens for your D7000 is the 16-85VR. Yes it is a DX lens, but its range is just great for landscapes, it's sharp, relatively small and light so more fun to carry around. And looking at second hand prices, I would not loose too much if I'd sell mine today - something like ~€100 difference with the price I paid four years ago. Compared to the deprication of my body, that's really not a whole lot.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p><em>"d7000 is unbalanced with the 24-70mm."</em> A grip would easily resolve this if you found this to be the case. If you are shooting on a tripod, it really wouldn't make a difference anyway.</p>

<p>Since are are covered up to 24mm already and you plan to go to full frame in the near future, the 24-70mm seems like a good match for you. I have always enjoyed using this lens on DX bodies I owned.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>I think the 24-70mm 2.8 is a decent lens on DX, but if you are going to be using DX for the next year or so I would get a DX lens on the used market that (as Peter said) goes back 16 or 18mm. A 16-85mm or an 18-105mm would be good wide options with a solid telephoto end. But this is a matter of preference. Given the 24-70 has a hefty price, you should rent one for about a week and see how you like shooting with it on DX. If it works for you, then it's right for you and you should get it. If changing lenses is a pain once you are out, then I would consider one of those DX options.</p>

[photomarche]

<p>@KJ Thomas: I ll probably follow your advice and rent it for few days...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If it is purely for landscape, I would not get the 24-70 f/2.8, really. Nor the 17-55 f/2.8, for that matter.<br /> The reason I would not take either of the f/2.8 zooms for landscape work is the fact that I wouldn't be using f/2.8. Or f/4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point.<br>

I am now looking at the review of the 16-85 on the d7000, I am reconsidering the whole thing now.. thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[phil_burt]

<p>Francesco, I am surely not a pro shooter as some of those that have already answered but I will still throw in my 2 cents. I use a D 90 and I have found the 24-70 to be an execellent lens to use on DX format. Like you, I have the 10-24 so it seemed right to get the 24-70. If I looked at all of my photos I would guess that it is about 75% in use for them.<br>

No matter what you get I would not worry about having to sell a lens, there is a market for them to be sure. Especially if in real good condition, and like it was stated earlier if you know you will be selling try to find a used one and you will not loose much at all and can be also passing along a bargain to another photo shooter. Good Luck!<br>

Have fun shooting......</p>

<p>phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Keep in mind that the fast zooms are generally made better than the slower ones, so even into f8 to f16 the big fast zoom has better resolution, contrast, and colour rendition. Most of the slower consumer zooms come with VR now and that is what you end up paying for. If you are using a tripod then VR becomes less of a benefit.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>At the moment, I keep changing the lenses between the 35mm and 50mm… it is not very practical to do this outside, considering also that I have to remove the filters holder and add it back after changing the lens. Also the light does not wait for me to change the lenses :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Light does change, but typically not that quickly, and your lendscape does not move very quickly either.</p>

<p>The 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S is a $200 lens and the 50mm/f1.8 AF-S is $220. To me, it makes little sense to spend $1900 on a big and heavy 24-70mm/f2.8 to replace them, and to top it off, you probably won't be using it at f2.8 or even f4 very much for landscape. (Of course, you won't be using f1.8 on the 35mm and 50mm either, but since there is no 35mm/f4 AF-S or 50mm/f4 AF-S, and those lenses are only around $200 to begin with, you won't have altenatives to save money and weight.)</p>

<p>Why are you using filter holders? Are you using graduated neutral-density filters (GND)? Even though you do, you can always get additional holders to have them dedicated to each lens if you feel that it is too cumbersone to switch them from lens to lens. GNDs tend to be expensive, but even though you get a couple more of them, it will still be cheaper than buying a 24-70mm/f2.8 and use it at f8 or so, and even multiple filter holders will still weight less. Personally, since I stopped shooting film, I also mostly stopped using GND filters. Digital has plenty of dyanmic range and I can also do HDR merge.</p>

<p>Nikon's 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is also not a lens for landscape. Once again f2.8 is a waste, and that lens is designed for subjects in mid distance, such as people in parties from 10, 15 feet away. It is not as good at infinity, where you'll tend to us it at for landscape photography.</p>

[photomarche]

<p>Shun,<br>

I use the Lee filter holder system with grad and standard filters, however I do have dedicated ring adapters for each lenses, so it is easier to trasfer the holders from a lens to another.<br>

Thanks for your inputs, I would not use such lenses (24-70) at 2.8 for people or so... for that, I enjoy my primes.<br>

From what I am reading around on reviews, It looks like 16-85 DX is a good candidate and superior to other kit lenses. I hope this is a good perfomer on the d7000, I am aware of the fact that the d7000 sensor requires good quality glasses. This lens would also replace 3 of my existing lenses in most occasions, I have very few shots done at 10 and 12mm</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Francesco, originally, you listed that having to move the Lee filter holder from one lens to another as one of the reasons you would rather not change lenses and therefore prefer zooms. Obvioulsy whether you need filters that way or not is your choice, but I am questioning why you need to use that Lee filter holder to begin with on a D7000 (digital). And if you indeed do, one alternative is to have 2, 3 of those holders semi permanently on each lens, thus avoiding moving the one holder you have around.</p>

<p>IMO, getting a big, heavy, and expensive 24-70mm/f2.8 to avoid moving a filter hoder is not a very effective approach. I mainly use zoom myself so that I am by no means a prime advocate, but those 35mm/f1.8 and 50mm/f1.8 are very affordable and high-quality lenses. And if you want a zoom, for landscape photography, I would go for a slower, smaller and less expensive one. The 16-85mm can be a good option, but I always feel that it is on the expensive side for a slow lens.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>If your goal is to have a zoom that covers a similar range or a bit more and avoid changing the lens so frequently, it would not be crazy to try the consumer grade DX zooms. They're very affordable, surprisingly good quality, and if you don't need extra speed, may fit your needs. Assuming, of course, that you don't need the extra durability. You'll always be able to switch for the primes when you feel a shot warrants it. And if you don't like them, you certainly won't have lost much when you do jump to FX.</p>

[photomarche]

<p>Thanks Greg,<br>

I feel a bit uncorfortable when I want to change lenses I am working on the beach, the coast is windy as well, you never know I might get sand inside the camera etc, I'd rather have the same lens on in this situations.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>waterfalls, quicksand, poisonous snakes,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>someone has been watching too many movies.</p>

<p>for the OP, as others pointed out, you don't actually need the 24-70. all you need is a zoom which will give you good image quality stopped down to f/8-11, as landscape pics typically are. that sounds like a job for the 16-85 VR. i wouldnt worry too much about buying lenses for a camera you dont have, as opposed to getting something which works with what you do have.</p>

<p>the 24-70 is an excellent lens optically but much more suited to FX than DX. the good news is that for DX users there are less-expensive, more compact options which are still pretty good optically, like the 16-85, which covers a more useful range and has VR to boot. if you dont need constant 2.8 and the 5.6 on the long end isnt a problem, there's no reason not to spend 2/3rds less for a lens much better suited to a d7000 and your stated purpose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This lens would also replace 3 of my existing lenses in most occasions,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that pretty much says it all...</p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon's 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is also not a lens for landscape. Once again f2.8 is a waste, and that lens is designed for subjects in mid distance, such as people in parties from 10, 15 feet away. It is not as good at infinity, where you'll tend to us it at for landscape photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed on the f/2.8 being a waste for landscape (goes for the 24-70 too of course). Need to add that the 17-55 may not be as good as infinity as it is at mid-range - but it certainly isn't bad (and in fact better than some of the alternatives mentioned).</p>

<p>For landscape shooting - the Nikon 16-85 is certainly a good choice. If you want a lens that starts at 24mm - have a look at the 24-85/2.8-4. It's not an AF-S lens (but FX) for about the same price as the 16-85 DX. The discontinued 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S is also an option - depending on whether or not you get a good copy, the optical quality should be at par with the 24-85/2.8-4.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think that 24-70 is not as good a range on DX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it depends. For some, it will be too long at the short end - for others, the equivalent of an FX FOV of a 35-105 is very appealing; especially considering the constant f/2.8 aperture - there never has been an FX lens of that focal length range and constant aperture though. On FX, I most certainly would find the lens too short at the long end (as I do with the 17-55/2.8 on DX).</p>

<p> </p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>The Nikon 16-85 f3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR is a slow lens and needs a lot of light to optimally function with the D7000 auto focus system, which likes fast lenses or a lot of light to perform well and accurately. On a sunny day this lens will shine. In open shade or dim flat lighting, the D7000 will struggle to get accurate focus. Just keep that in mind.</p>

<h1 > </h1>

 

[photomarche]

<p>@Robert: thanks for pointing this out, I had this problem shooting in the evening with the 10-24mm f3.5-4.5, it would not focus (likewise the 18-105mm)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Francesco, you are talking about shooting landscape. Put the camera on a tripod and use live view on the D7000 to fine tune focus manually. Auto focus does not even need to be in the picture at all.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Francesco, you already have a very good lens for landscapes (Nikkor 10-24). In order to complement it one of the best options in the market is Tamron 28-75/2.8. This lens is a gem and in terms of cost / size / IQ has no competitor at this FL range for landscaping. It will serve you well on full frame, eventually.</p>

[samuel_lipoff]

I am a big fan of primes for my own shooting, and tend to agree with Shun in this case. But I can understand how one lens could be more convenient even for landscape shooting. I think the 16-85 would be a very viable option too, but let me suggest one other option --- the much cheaper and older 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I got with my D70 way back when, and although

I hardly ever used it, preferring primes, I was always plesantly surprised when I did use it, especially at f/8. It's light,

inexpensive, and pretty well built.

[ty_mickan]

You'll want to be at around f5.6 on a 24mm lens for landscape, so an f2.8 lens would be a minimum to give you decent

image quality. I don't see the point going to a zoom, as you seem to have that covered already with the primes. Zooms

aren't for filling the frame, you need to decide how you want the image to look, choose your focal length, then frame.

[johnw63]

<p>When I bought my D7000, I needed a wider lens since it made my 24mm f2.8 not so wide. I also wanted a lens that would work on full frame or film. I got the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 D. It goes for under $400 used from KEH. My thoughts were, I don't need f2.8 for landscape, and I would probably be in the middle f stops. I also didn't need an AF-S lens since the landscape moves very slowly. I also figured I did not use the "normal" focal lengths as much, so the range from 35mm to about 75mm was not needed.</p>

[james_angersola]

<p>I just purchased a Nikon 24mm-70mm for use on my D-300 and D-700. For the first time yesterday I tried out the new lens on my D-300. It is a fantastic lens.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I would not take either of the f/2.8 zooms for landscape work is the fact that I wouldn't be using f/2.8. Or f/4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><br /></strong>Happily swimming against the current of opinion here, an f/2.8 zoom is my preference for a couple of reasons that are important to me:</p>

<ol>

<li>Brighter viewfinder. An inescapable fact of life: the wider the aperture, the brighter the viewfinder, period. Sure you stop down for more DoF a lot with landscapes, but to a landscaper, a brighter viewfinder might matter a lot in early and late light, or at night (foggy pre-dawn daybreak or moonscapes over water, anyone?). Who shoots landscapes in broad daylight anyway? The lens will automatically stop down to whatever you dialed in on the camera body when you release the shutter. Besides, I wouldn't have a zoom I couldn't use for other things. <br /></li>

<li>Sharpness. As a rule, lenses that have wider max apertures out-perform cheaper lenses when stopped down to the same value (e.g. a good f/2.8 lens will almost always out-perform f/4 lenses when both are stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, and it will certainly do it at f/4).</li>

</ol>

<p>You don't <em>need</em> an f/2.8 zoom for landscapes, and you don't <em>need</em> AF either (in fact, for landscapes you shouldn't use it, but rather focus manually using live view and 2x zoom while shooting from a tripod or other steady rest). The late Galen Rowell is said to have occasionally used cheaper, lighter, slower zooms that he tested for sharpness stopped down, but I'm certainly not in GR's league and I definitely don't go jogging up mountains at all, let alone with a camera kit in a chest pack. Speaking of full disclosure, f/2.8 zooms are heavier and bigger than slower zooms of similar focal range, and they're more expensive, too...sometimes by a lot. A cheap 18-55 DX kit zoom can absolutely deliver the IQ goods when stopped down, but IMO it's better as a fishing weight in low light.<br /></p>

<p>If you find yourself switching between a fast 35mm and 50mm a lot with DX, <em>and</em> you like your 10-24 zoom, and still <em>really</em> want to minimize lens changes, <em>and</em> you want a fast high-quality zoom you can use for landscapes (and a lot of other things besides), get a 17-55/2.8 Nikkor. I'm not aware of any IQ or AF complaints with that lens. It isn't exactly petite, but it's smaller and lighter than a 24-70/2.8. It's also still state-of-the-art in a DX Nikon zoom. As a matter of fact, I'm unaware of any AF DX zoom that's better in its focal range. </p>