Which nikon lens for Landscape?

PaulF

PaulF

Messages
1,863
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I have a Nikon D5000 and am looking to get a suitable lens for landscapes to add the 70-300 VR and 50mm f/1.4 I already have (and the kit one which hardly gets on the camera these days).

I've done a search on here but nothing specific is coming up.

My budget would be in the £500 area, less would be good as always :thumbs:

Could anyone offer any advice as to ones I should be short listing?

Thanks in advace.
Paul
 
Well, the Sigma 10-20 is the UWA of choice (many people with unlimited budgets use it over the Nikon 12-24). The Tokina 11-16 i also a great lens but 16mm can be a little short at the long end.

That said, I use telephoto as often as not for landscapes...
 
Last edited:
Pretty much what Nawty said. I love my Siggy 10-20, but if you get that, make sure to get the f/4-5.6 version, not the f/3.5 version. The f/3.5 version is more expensive and not as good. :)
 
how about the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 II AT-X124 AF PRO DX Lens which is under your budget (OSD) :shrug:
 
Kaouthia said:
Pretty much what Nawty said. I love my Siggy 10-20, but if you get that, make sure to get the f/4-5.6 version, not the f/3.5 version. The f/3.5 version is more expensive and not as good. :)
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Have you had a look at the Tamron 10-24mm? Around £300 in Jessops :)
 
Most people love ultra wide angles for landscapes, but not me :shrug:. Personally, my lens of choice would be something in the 35~200mm range for this type of shoots.

For this, and fitting nicely in your price bracket, I'd suggest the Nikon 18-70 AF-S. It's an amazing bit of glass from Nikon, especially for the price.
 
I will second the nikon 18-70, it gets used ten times more than my nikon 12-24. Unless you need the really wide end i would go with the 18-70 or a second hand nikon 17-55.
 
He already has a kit lens that goes to 18mm (and is good at that).

@ the OP - a UWA isn't really for "getting it all in" but for perspective effects - in terms of landscape this would be where you have an object of interest in the foreground and a nice background behind it (e.g. a nice rock on a beach). However, commonly landscape is more about isolating the area of interest which is why a telephoto lens is good.
 
Thanks for the quick replies.

The 18-70 AF-S seems a good option, it would fill the gap in my current lenses, it does not seem to have VR though if I am reading the specs correctly.

I've been taking a look at the Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f3.5-5.6G ED DX VR Lens. Seems similar to the 18-70 AF-S but with VR added.

Would this be decent for lanscapes at the wider end?
 
Nikon 17-55mm (DX) could be got second hand for that budget - or for more - the 17-35mm - there's one available on TP right now. If you want quality pics - you have to pay for quality glass!
 
Last edited:
I've not used the 16-85VR, but I know the 18-70 pretty well; it's an amazing bit of glass from Nikon.

Variable aperture, it is; plastic body, it is; but for landscapes, where you'll be shooting at f/8 and above, it is an outstanding performer. It's also great as a walkabout lens, sharp, great colours, light weight, reasonable budget.

You'd want to consider a decent Circular Polariser too, comes in pretty handy for landscapes. Marumi make great polarisers.

Of course, if you want f/2.8 glass, then either of the 17-55 AF-S or the 17-35 AF-S are great, as has already been suggested; then there's the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
 
But, for landscapes, why would you need f/2.8 glass? You're going to want to be shooting at about f/8 to get as much depth of field as possible anyway.

That's why I think anything more expensive than the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for landscapes is a waste.
 
because no-one shoots just landscapes - and the 2.8 glass is still better at all apertures.
 
At f/8, there's really nothing in it.

Personally, I've never found it a problem to shoot at f/4-5.6 and just go to Iso1600 or 3200 if needed.
 
I like the Nikkor 20mm AF-D on a crop, anything wider looks really distorted..:cool:
 
I have the Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 ,I also have the Nikkor 17-55 2.8,I use the 17-55 95% of the time.
Go for the Nikkor 18-70,you don't really need VR for landscape,a tripod is much more useful :thumbs:

But if you have the money and want to invest in a cracking lens I would buy the Nikkor 17-55.
Then again,if you are thinking of going FX with a D700 or above ,keep the spending down on DX lenses.

I am probably never going full frame as I don't do much portrait and like the cropped sensor for the reach.:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top