Best Landscape Lens Focal Lens If Only One Lens

Tom Potter

RE: Best Landscape Lens Focal Lens If Only One Lens

Hey Dudes & Duddettes!

Can you please give me some feedback on this. I have the Nikon $1,000.00 12 - 24mm Lens and the $700.00 18 - 200mm lens for my Nikon D300. My question is this: I am considering upgrading from the 18 - 200mm. I wonder, if I was to get just one prime lens, trading in the 18-200mm, and keeping the 12-24, which focal length would be the most practical length to get? My goal is to upgrade in quality from the 18 - 200 mm lens.

Thanks so much for your help & opinions!!

Tom Potter

babowc

I think almost any prime will be better, in terms of optical performance, compared to the 18-200mm..
Since you're on DX, 35mm 1.8G would be an inexpensive option and doesn't overlap your existing focal length.

Tom Potter

babowc wrote: »

I think almost any prime will be better, in terms of optical performance, compared to the 18-200mm..
Since you're on DX, 35mm 1.8G would be an inexpensive option and doesn't overlap your existing focal length.

Hey Bobowc,

I really appreciate your help with this. May I impose upon you to go into more specific detail on your thoughts?.....Thanks, Tom

ziggy53

You are in the singular best position to know your choice in lenses. Just review your image galleries, looking at the EXIF, especially for significant images, and look at the focal lengths used. You will probably see a trend of focal lengths that you use. Just choose a high-quality prime to match your most-used focal length.

(You may also discover that a single prime may not be enough. Be open and flexible with your observations and conclusions.)

---

For static scenes, you may also be interested in using stitched image photography, which has the particular advantage of covering pretty much any wide angle-of-view through multiple, overlapping images. If you include foreground then it does require a panoramic head, but a short telephoto true macro lens can yield astonishing levels of image detail.

Do check out the best panoramic thread ever:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=101529

Results:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=990541&postcount=274
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=994328&postcount=293

Be sure to see what Baldy did here:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039964&postcount=362
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039966&postcount=363

Tom Potter

Thank you Ziggy so much - Great info - Thank you to all for taking the time to help me out - MUCH appreciated! :O)

ziggy53 wrote: »

You are in the singular best position to know your choice in lenses. Just review your image galleries, looking at the EXIF, especially for significant images, and look at the focal lengths used. You will probably see a trend of focal lengths that you use. Just choose a high-quality prime to match your most-used focal length.

(You may also discover that a single prime may not be enough. Be open and flexible with your observations and conclusions.)

---

For static scenes, you may also be interested in using stitched image photography, which has the particular advantage of covering pretty much any wide angle-of-view through multiple, overlapping images. If you include foreground then it does require a panoramic head, but a short telephoto true macro lens can yield astonishing levels of image detail.

Do check out the best panoramic thread ever:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=101529

Results:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=990541&postcount=274
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=994328&postcount=293

Be sure to see what Baldy did here:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039964&postcount=362
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039966&postcount=363

babowc

Tom Potter wrote: »

Hey Bobowc,

I really appreciate your help with this. May I impose upon you to go into more specific detail on your thoughts?.....Thanks, Tom

I suggested the 35mm DX since you wanted a landscape lens versus a portrait..
On the DX, 35mm is still equivalent to something like 5- mm lens.
Also, the 35mm 1.8G is an inexpensive option compared to other FX lenses and doesn't overlap with your current lens(es).

If you wanted to, you can use a moderate telephoto with good optics, like the 105mm 2.8VR, and pan/stitch the shot together.
It'd be a bit cumbersome, though.

Matthew Saville

Get the 50 1.8 AFS-G, if you find yourself shooting in low-light a lot, or get the 85 3.5 DX Macro, if you're more of a macro nut. Or the 105 2.8 VR Macro, if you've got the budget. Personally, I went for the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro and I never regretted it; GREAT for wildlife and macro and stuff. Of course that does leave you a gaping hole back in the 50-85mm range.

My question is, ...why so bent on the "just one lens" or "just two lenses" philosophy? Get all the lenses you need, and if space really is an issue at certain times, leave some lenses home. Of course I know money is an issue, but I'm just saying that *eventually* you'll want to have all the lenses on your dream list.

Personally, for landscape photography my ultimate setup would actually be different. I'd get the Nikon 16-85 DX instead of the 12-24, at least for general shooting. For general shooting I'd go with the 16-85 DX and the 35 1.8 DX. Can't go wrong with that 2-lens kit on a crop sensor. However, if I were obsessed with stars and other ultra-wide things, which I happen to be, ...I'd also consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which I have gotten AMAZING results from when shooting stars and other things that require fast apertures at ultra-wide angles... Or, once again, if I were into wildlife and macro, I might get a 105 2.8 or 150 2.8 macro. A lot bigger and heavier, but worth it if you like that type of subject...

=Matt=

Tom Potter

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Get the 50 1.8 AFS-G, if you find yourself shooting in low-light a lot, or get the 85 3.5 DX Macro, if you're more of a macro nut. Or the 105 2.8 VR Macro, if you've got the budget. Personally, I went for the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro and I never regretted it; GREAT for wildlife and macro and stuff. Of course that does leave you a gaping hole back in the 50-85mm range.

My question is, ...why so bent on the "just one lens" or "just two lenses" philosophy? Get all the lenses you need, and if space really is an issue at certain times, leave some lenses home. Of course I know money is an issue, but I'm just saying that *eventually* you'll want to have all the lenses on your dream list.

Personally, for landscape photography my ultimate setup would actually be different. I'd get the Nikon 16-85 DX instead of the 12-24, at least for general shooting. For general shooting I'd go with the 16-85 DX and the 35 1.8 DX. Can't go wrong with that 2-lens kit on a crop sensor. However, if I were obsessed with stars and other ultra-wide things, which I happen to be, ...I'd also consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which I have gotten AMAZING results from when shooting stars and other things that require fast apertures at ultra-wide angles... Or, once again, if I were into wildlife and macro, I might get a 105 2.8 or 150 2.8 macro. A lot bigger and heavier, but worth it if you like that type of subject...

=Matt=

Thanks a lot Matt - Lots of great info to consider - Appreciate you taking the time!