Which lense is next for landscape : 24-120 or 70-200 if you already have 16-35

[tuan_do1]

<p>I'm at the hard time to decide which lense should i buy next since i fell in love with the landscape and travel photography. The 16-35 is with me now on a FF body. Building a new kit is really tough for me and i don't know which one i should go with next : 24-120 or 70-200.<br>

- The 24-120 f4 has the same filter size with 16-35 but it overlaps its range (24 to 35). The 24-120 may supersede the 16-35 once it is mounted on the camera.<br>

- The 70-200 f4 has smaller filter size which is the concern. Another thing is how often you need a telephoto range for a serious landscape photography.<br>

Any advice is highly appreciated.</p>

 

[hugh_sakols]

<p>I just finished spending the entire summer photographing Yosemite's wilderness. I brought a 16-35, a 50, and the 70-200 f4. Yes the telephoto is extremely useful for compressing scenes. The landscape photographer John Shaw once said that if had to choose one focal length he would choose 105mm. What I missed the most was my 24-70mm, but didn't bring it because of weight. I think you will find the 24-120mm the most useful range in your arsenal of lenses. In fact if I were to dump a lens it would be the 16-35. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I would recommend both, or maybe a 24-70 plus 70-200. As Hugh says, a telephoto zoom is very useful in landscape both for compressing things together and for picking out detail too far away to walk up to. (When I went to the Grand Canyon a few years ago, I added a 12-24 to my 24-70 and 70-200 thinking I would be taking in sweeping vistas. But ended up using the 70-200 more to isolate interesting parts.) But if you can only buy just one, I would go with the 25-105 since it sounds like you have absolutely nothing at all longer than 35. That way you would be covered from ultra wide to portrait length without a gap. But I would go for the 70-200 next.<br /><br />As for filter size, the most convenient thing is to have filters that fit the lens. But you can also use step-down adaptors to put a larger filter on a smaller lens, at least temporarily. (They do keep you from mounting the lens hood in most cases.)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I never quite got the idea that landscape photography is about wide angles. I've got the 24-120 f/4VR, and I mainly got it for landscapes. With that lens, I have very little need for other lenses, though I occassionally miss a longer lens.<br>

But, given you already have the 16-35, that's water under the bridge. I'd get a 50mm f/1.8G and 70-200 f/4VR alongside, as Hugh mentions; would make a nice versatile kit that covers everything, and give you some more low light capabilities/shallow DoF options too.</p>

[kerry_grim]

A 24-70 seems to be the obvious choice if you do not mind the space/weight used by three zooms.

 

I am not one that thinks three zooms lenses is necessary...two zooms and a single-focal length. Nor do I think every single millimeter needs to be covered. But this is me, not you. In reality I often carry a 17-40, 24, and 100 macro. unless I think there is a good chance to used it, I leave my 70-200 at home. I do have a 50 macro, but this stays at home. I sometimes carry just the 24 and 100 macro if not in a scenic area. I use the 24 for its sharpness and small filter size that I will use with neutral density filters for streams. Bottom line is that I use 4 lenses for 98% of my shooting (outdoors, landscape) but mostly carry three to suit the situation when in the field. If working form the car, then I may take everything. This is with my full frame camera.

 

You might consider something like a 50 or 60 macro.

 

To add to John Shaws comment; Galen Rowell once said he could have used just a 24mm and 85mm lenses for 90% of his photography. He was very mobile and that light weight suited his style. In reality, he owned and used a lot of lenses.

[dcstep]

<p>I looked through all my landscape shots taken with my 70-200mm and all were taken at under 110mm. The most common focal length was 98mm for some reason. I would still recommend a 70-200mm for most people, mostly to cover other things, but a 24-120mm will cover most of your landscape needs, if you shoot anything like I do. </p>

<p>Don't worry about overlap. People that actually own and shoot these lenses don't worry about it. It seems to come up in buying decisions, but as long as you're gaining on one end or the other, you'll use both the lenses in question.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>My landscape arsenal currently includes a24-120 and an 80-200. Most of my shots are in the 85-200 range. I shoot predominantly landscapes in the western US.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I assume you mean the 24-105.</p>

<p>It all depends on how and what you shoot. There is no uniform best. However, I would not want to be without anything between 35 and 70. I own both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4, and I use them both for landscape, but given what I do, the 24-105 is more useful. I tend to leave that on as my default and then switch to something longer or wider if I need it. However, you may shoot differently.</p>

[tuan_do1]

<p>Thank you all for your advices. Couldn't agree more that the 24-120 focal range is the most useful for travel and landscape. It may be the only lens needed for travel. <br>

Most of my previous landscape photo is taken at 18mm on a DX body and i remembered that i always wished to have a wider lens at that time. The 18-105mm was my default lens for any trip but can't satisfy with its IQ (can't claim for that cheap piece).<br>

I still keep the 35f2 & 85f1.8 after selling the old DX body &18-105. Seems that i should sell the 85 and get a 70-200f4 as of its lightweight & IQ & more reach at some location and local event/festival.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Tuan, I never had the 18-105VR myself, but I know many people who have it and use it as their principal lens. For all I see, that lens is pretty excellent; the build quality isn't great, but optically there is nothing wrong with it. If yours was a mediocre performer, either something was wrong with it, or your expectation is a tad high.<br>

I have the AF-D 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8D, and I would rate both decent landscape lenses - at small apertures, they're fine performers. At wider apertures, both frankly leave quite a bit to be desired. The 24-120VR is better than those two.</p>

<p><em>I assume you mean the 24-105. - </em>Nikon has a 24-120 f/4, instead of a 24-105.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The problem as you get the wider lens for this work is that it includes a lot of sky and foreground and an alternative which I have followed for the past decade is to learn how to stitch two or more overlapping frames in your editor. I recently got a 15mm bug-eye for 'fun' but previously used a 35mm and often longer. By taking more frames you increase the number of pixels in the finished product whereas if cropping a WA shot you are likely throwing away half the available pixels .... do the maths .... as even a small crop throws away a high proportion of the pixels.</p>

<p>Plus there is an eronious concept around that to take landscape you need a wide lens 'to get it all in' whereas many experienced people find they need a tighter lens to make a representative selection.</p>