Going to Yellowstone and Teton. Need a good landscape lens

[grimstache]

<p>Good morning Photo.net. My fiancee and I are going to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. I shoot with a D7100 and have macro and tele covered well, however I have no idea what to get for landscape. My budget is around $500. I was looking at the Nikon 24mm f/2.8D AF, I primarily shoot in prime lenses. I was also looking at the 16-85mm. I plan on going FX in the future and don't want to married to DX lenses. Does anyone have experience using the two for landscape? Thanks for the help!<br /></p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I honk you'll get more use out of normal and longer lenses at Yellowstone than you will out of wide angle lenses. My

favorite lenses at Yellowstone were an 80-200 f2.8 and a 300mm, and I often wished I'd brought a 400~600mm as well.

This was with an FX format camera (actually an F5 but same format size.) but it was either bring the big lenses or my wife

- and since it was our honeymoon, the wife was the obvious choice. ;-)

 

With your budget, you might look into renting instead. Try http://www.lensrentals.com

[CvhKaar]

<p>. I was also looking at the 16-85mm. I plan on going FX in the future and don't want to married to DX lenses.</p>

<p>Mm if you do not want a DX lens then you do not want the 16-85 i guess....</p>

[Two23]

<p>Buy lenses for the camera you have. You can always resell later, right? A 24mm will be no where NEAR wide enough for Yellowstone. A waste of money. The 16-85mm makes a lot more sense. I often use a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, but at those kinds of places I'm a bit of a ultrawide freak. Most important thing to bring is a polarizer.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>Buying lenses now that you plan to sell later doesn't seem to make a lot sense to me,I always lost money when selling! +1 on renting makes a lot more sense as someone has pointed out.</p>

[jensvind]

<p>A few day's in Yosemite, looking trough my photos, 90 % shot with my 24-70 on a D700</p><div></div>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>For a DX body I recommend the 16-85mm lens. I own it and use it as my main travel lens. For landscapes, your macro lens might be used too especially if it is between 50mm and 105mm. I use my short focal length macro lens a lot for landscapes where I do not need to go very wide. <br>

Given your budget, I think the DX zoom makes sense. A quality FX zoom lens is well beyond your budget. If you need to go "low Budget" consider a used 18-70mm DX but I do not think its image quality is up to the 16-85mm's.<br>

Joe Smith </p>

[jensvind]

<p>I would go for the 16-85 zoom.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Buy a used 16-85 and sell it when you "upgrade to FX in the future". The monetary loss incurred then might not be more than renting said lens for two weeks now.</p>

[Gup]

<p>When I need more 'wide' I just take two shots and look after it later in PP. I wouldn't be considering landscapes without a tripod so it's never a real problem. </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>If you are shooting large game, buffalo, elk, moose, bear in addition to landscape, you need some length. Although on my last trip had a 70-200 and 1.7 multiplier on a d200. Only had minimum 6' of focus. When a buffalo cow saw the winking from the lens, walked over to the passenger fender and started licking the windshield looking right at me, I couldn't get the shot. I appeal to women of all species. It's that photographers animal magnetism. Also had hopped from the passenger seat shooting position into the drivers seat and put the key in the ignition so when she walked to the front of the rental car that had a low sloping hood, I got out of there. Also had one walking down the road as I was parked nearly take off the drivers side mirror. That's close. I would rent a 70-200 and a 1.7 multiplier to see how you like it for purpose of a future purchase. On your crop camera that gives you about 500mm for the critters. I agree with Kent, the 16-35 on your camera is only a 24 equivalent. I am heading there next week-to fish, not so much photo- as I make my way from CA to my new home in Tampa but will have 16-35 on FF, 70-200 + 1.7 with crop body if needed, If you have time, get to the falls around 9 am for a rainbow. Beautiful shots from north end of lake at sunset. Ellis, I thought you were a photographer, brought the new bride instead of a long lense? Here is a shot of yosemite, in the line up of 30 tripods taking one of these tunnel view shots down Yosemite valley, only one had a light on a stick firing through a shoot through umbrella- david zisers zumbrella. As McNally said, I never saw a landscape I couldn't improve by putting a person in it. </p><div></div>

[rick_m.]

<p>I agree with Ellis. I think you will find yourself using the longer rather than shorter lenses more. I lived in Bozeman for a time and that was my experience in the park. </p>

<p>I also agree that you should buy lenses for the camera you have. I don't know why you are committed to primes. Such inconvenience. I also wonder what lens you have that has tele "covered". Surly not a 105 macro? </p>

<p>Based only on what you have said, if I were going to Yellowstone with your budget I would buy the 18-55 vr kit lens and the 70-300 vr. That should fit in your budget. You can keep the 70-300 when you go full frame and the 18-50 is so inexpensive (though very good) that you can keep it for your backup camera. </p>

<p>Then shoot carefully. And please use a tripod when you can. That will be of greater effect than any small differences in the quality of lenses. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I used a lot of wide angle shots when I went to those places.</p>

<p>If I were going today. I'd bring a 16-85, a 70-300 (long is GOOD on a trip like this) and a tripod. I'd throw my 35mm f1.8 and 55mm micro in the bag, too.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Rick, I agree on the 70-300 on crop. Jay Maisels favorite for street also. 450 equiv at long end. Great lens. Kit 18-55 will be fine. If you need wider, stitch. </p>

[ussorca]

<p>Just noticed a Tokina 12-24mm for sale here on photonet for a most reasonable price. Might be worth a look. Enjoy the mountains and hope you get some great pics.</p>

[phillips]

<p>My Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is on the D800 the great majority of the time for landscapes. At Yellowstone the extra length of the 16-85mm could be very useful. I'll second Dieter's suggestion about buying it used; that's within the budget you mentioned.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>I could never understand the widespread preference for wide angle lenses for landscapes. Sure, when you stand on some mountain top and have a wonderful view of some magnificent panorama, you really want to capture all of it, and reach for the widest angle lens you have. But when you get home and print the image you end up with a sort of picture postcard that is a condensed version of what you saw, but lacks most of the details that impressed your eyes when viewing it in person. Just my personal opinion. YMMV.</p>

<p>My favorite lens for landscapes is the 180mm/2.8. If I need a panorama I can always stitch.</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>You have a very, very good camera to take with you. A camera that needs good glass to adjust it's superior resolution. Kit lenses are a compromise for this camera. Of course if you just shoot for fun or for web use then it doesn't matter that much. But if you're serious of getting pictures and want to take advantage of your camera, then a good wide, or even a ultra wide lens is a must (since as you said from macro and tele you're covered).<br /> If you don't want to buy a DX lens such a the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, or UW like Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which are superb for the use you're suggesting, then rent one. FX solutions are more expensive. Good luck!<br /> P.S. Shoot RAW + jpg Fine to take advantage of the Nikon D7100.</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>I agree you'll want a good wide lens, particularly for the thermal features in Yellowstone and when you get in around the smaller lakes in GTNP. I use the 16-85 and have been very happy with it, but there's a factor to bear in mind when considering focal lengths. A polarizer is a very, very good idea for scenery in these parks, but the width of the polarizing effect is limited. If you want to make extensive use of a polarizer, there's no real value in getting something wider than 16 mm for a DX format camera - there will be a visible edge to the polarized region in the images if you shoot too wide. Also, pay attention in your viewfinder to how strong the polarizing effect is - at some of the elevations you can/will encounter in these parks, the effect may be stronger than you want, resulting in an unnaturally dark sky. If you get to a high enough altitude, the sky can almost look black!</p>

[grimstache]

<p>Thanks for all the responses. My long tele is the Nikon 300 f/4 AF-S with the 1.4 tele. My macro is the Nikon 105mm VRII that's what I mostly shoot with. I go for animals and insects. I think I'll see if I can try the 16-85 with a polarizer. Thanks everyone!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I would vote for the 16-85. You can sell it if you switch to FX.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>For less than $500 you can get a 12-24 f4 Nikkor DX lens. Love mine, it's very sharp stopped down a bit. </p>

[john_harper9]

<p>In the Tetons and Yellowstone using FF, 24mm captures most of my wide perspectives with stitching available for panos. A short to medium telephoto (70-200) is very useful. Other than moose and buffalo where close encounters are common, wildlife needs a long telephoto. The Park Service seems intent on enforcing a 500 mm separation between grizzlies and spectators.</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>I love ultra wide angles and wouldn't go to Yellowstone or the Tetons without one. There is more than wildlife there. I doubt you will regret an ultra wide at Grand Prismatic for instance.<br>

I will second buying a used lens such as the Nikon 12-24 or 10-24. Sure they are DX only lenses but they will be easy to resell at the price you bought them if you are careful in the purchase.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I just replaced my Nikon 16-85mm with a Sigma C 17-70mm f4. It's sharper at pretty much all focal lengths* and I get an extra stop of light. The Nikon's extra reach of 15mm at the long end can be kinda got back by cropping. For the lost 1mm at the wide end, I'd just take 2,3 or 4 and stitch.</p>

<p>A tripod helps with controlling camera movement and, if mounted correctly, retains rotational centering for stitched panos. A monopod, though not ideal, still helps a lot.</p>

<p>* Maybe my 16-85mm has taken a knock at some time in it's life, but I've never had huge confidence in it, but YMMV..:-)</p>