Best Nikon-suitable lens for general landscape.

[deductress]

Hello,

Yes god it's me again, this is like my 50th question here - sorry!
Anyway, originally I was going to buy a lens best suited for "forest" photography, but now I am just seeking general landscape.

I own a Nikon D3200, a macro and kit lens. I now want a versatile landscape lens. The most important aspect to me is detail and vividness - there's probably a much better term for that but i'm still a bit of a newbie, forgive me.

I'm aiming to do mostly countryside landscape, but there may be a possibility of me using it for cityscapes/seascapes, so I need something versatile.

Also if there's any particular equipment people would recommend for various landscape set-ups, i'd love to hear that too.

Any questions, shoot at me. I've probably forgotten to mention some really important detail that everyone needs to know.

Thank you!

EDIT: Also before anyone says it, yes a kit may be suitable but I don't want to use the kit lens - I've tried it and it's just not the sufficient quality I want, it's okay for architecture but I just personally don't like how landscape looks with it. So I AM buying another lens.

 

[TCR4x4]

Hello,



Any questions, shoot at me. I've probably forgotten to mention some really important detail that everyone needs to know.

Thank you!

Budget?

TBH any answers in the first thread probably apply here. There is no such thing as a landscape lens, or a forest lens..

Landscapes can be taken with 8mm fish eyes or 500mm telephotos.

Having said that, most landscapes are done on wider lenses.. For now your 18-55mm should do the job perfectly adequately.

 

[deductress]

Budget?

TBH any answers in the first thread probably apply here. There is no such thing as a landscape lens, or a forest lens..

Landscapes can be taken with 8mm fish eyes or 500mm telephotos.

Having said that, most landscapes are done on wider lenses.. For now your 18-55mm should do the job perfectly adequately.

Budget - second hand would be what I'm aiming for, and lets say, £500 max? Maybe more if required.


The kind of lenses that were being recommended there were 11-16, 12-24, 70-200, tilt-lens, but we were discussing lens for specific use within a forestry area, so the guys recommending were taking into account tall, straight lines, etc etc.

 

[Nod]

My first choice would actually be an 18-70 kit lens from a few years back. It punches way above its weight. If I wasn't almost completely FF these days, I would still have mine but it went with the D200 a few years ago.
2nd choice on a relatively low budget would be a 24-70 f/2.8 - under £500 would lmost certainly be a 3rd party lens, so try before you buy - there have been some reports of iffy copies.
Next choice would be a Sigma 10-20 but again, TBYB!

 

[Nawty]

My fave landscape lens is probably my 70-300 VR (on full frame) although I am considering a 70-200 f/4 for better corner sharpness.

I also own an expensive UWA lens which I love but it is only useful for specific shots.

Basically I see it like this: if you think "that's a really cool view over there" then you probably need telephoto, if you think "I'm standing on/in something really cool" then you want an UWA.

I find myself thinking the former much more often - remember, landscape is generally about isolating a point of interest, not cramming it all in.

 

[Nguss]

For a cropped sensor general use landscape lens I loved my 10-20 Sigma. Lovely and sharp corner to corner and nice and wide too. Slight downside was the distortion. Second to that was my plasticky kit lens, which was something like 18-55 or 18-70. It again depends on whether you wanted wide or telephoto images though.

 

[sk66]

My fave landscape lens is probably my 70-300 VR (on full frame) although I am considering a 70-200 f/4 for better corner sharpness.

I also own an expensive UWA lens which I love but it is only useful for specific shots.

Basically I see it like this: if you think "that's a really cool view over there" then you probably need telephoto, if you think "I'm standing on/in something really cool" then you want an UWA.

I find myself thinking the former much more often - remember, landscape is generally about isolating a point of interest, not cramming it all in.

I tend to agree with this. IMO an UWA is meant for "close" or "close and far" (hyperfocus). Other than that it's about detail/points of interest and longer is better.

If there's a lot then I'd generally rather stitch together images taken with a longer lens as opposed to using an UWA.