Best Nikon lens for landscapes

heapeywildlife

heapeywildlife

Suspended / Banned
Messages
522
Name
Len
Edit My Images
Yes
What is considered to be the best mid priced Nikon lens (£200-£300) for landscape photography and why. Are there any 3rd party lenses that are considered to be as good?

Len
 
Whats lenses do you have already?

Pretty much any focal lenght can be used well for landscapes but generally the area where people buy lenses specifically for them tends to be ultrawide.

In your price range the choice would be pretty limated, really just the Sigma 10-20mm and the Tamron 10-24mm, the first of those has a very good reputation though.
 
Personally, I don`t like the ultra wide angle lenses. The Tamron 17-50 non VC is well within your price range, cracking little lens and very sharp.
 
I've got the 10-20 Sigma and am well pleased with the results do far. The latest Digital slr magazine has a comparison feature on 4
wide angle lenses
 
Not entirely sure about the 70-300 for landscape work Nawty - good lens though, got one myself. 10-20 Sigma on DX is as good as it gets for the money although the Nikon 16-85 is a good DX landscape lens which can be pressed into service as a good walkabout as well but new would probably be out of your price range. Plenty of second hand ones about though mate.
 
gbilling said:
Not entirely sure about the 70-300 for landscape work Nawty - good lens though, got one myself.
Click to expand...

I use it all the time for landscapes - some of my best keepers have come from it.

The point is that what lens you use depends ENTIRELY on the subject so unless you know the situation you want to shoot it's a little pointless in asking for lens recommendations.

OK, lets put it a different way. If you can actually stand on the front focus of the shot you want then an UWA is what you want, if you want a photo of a fantastic mountain in the distance then you need telephoto.

People tend to miss this point in landscape photography, you need to be able to isolate the subject just as much as you do in other types of photography.

All the photos taken here were with the 70-300:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=448389

You may or may not think that they're any good but they are undeniably landscape shots.

The first two shots here was taken with a UWA (I was actually standing in the water), but the undeniable best is 4, which was shot with a 70-300:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=436948
 
I was going to say the 70-200, you beat me to it on that.

Why so many think ultra wide is best for landscapes I don't know ... Sure they can produce great results, but you can get a completely different perspective of the same scene using a tele lens. And I prefer the compression you get usually, more so than the wider view.
 
Thanks everyone. I am looking to upgrade my 18-135 lens, which until now I have used mostly for landscapes and general work. It has been suggested that a 18-200 would be a good upgrade, but I wanted to be sure it was ok for landscapes as well. The16-85 second hand also looks like a good possibility.

Len
 
heapeywildlife said:
Thanks everyone. I am looking to upgrade my 18-135 lens, which until now I have used mostly for landscapes and general work. It has been suggested that a 18-200 would be a good upgrade, but I wanted to be sure it was ok for landscapes as well. The16-85 second hand also looks like a good possibility.

Len
Click to expand...

I wouldnt recomend moving to a longer superzoom for landscapes personally, your likely to see more of a dropoff at the long end when it comes to boarder sharpness.

The 16-85mm certainly sounds like a decent choice for a more general purpose landscape lens, when you get that wide the extra 2mm is defintinately noticble.

As has been said you really need to consider what landscapes your shooting, ultra wide lenses favour a certain style and certain subjects(interesting foreground, expensive skys etc). Personally I find I shoot mostly ultrawide in the UK were individual landforms tend to stand out less where as I use mid range zooms much more often in places like the Alps.
 
Moreorless said:
I wouldnt recomend moving to a longer superzoom for landscapes personally, your likely to see more of a dropoff at the long end when it comes to boarder sharpness.

The 16-85mm certainly sounds like a decent choice for a more general purpose landscape lens, when you get that wide the extra 2mm is defintinately noticble.

As has been said you really need to consider what landscapes your shooting, ultra wide lenses favour a certain style and certain subjects(interesting foreground, expensive skys etc). Personally I find I shoot mostly ultrawide in the UK were individual landforms tend to stand out less where as I use mid range zooms much more often in places like the Alps.
Click to expand...

Again here to correct the misconceptions about the 18-200mm.

It's sharp all over at 18mm including corners.

The reason not to have it as a dedicated landscape lens is due to some barrel distortion at 18mm.

The reason to have it is that it's a bloody good lens in every way :)
 
Phil Young said:
Again here to correct the misconceptions about the 18-200mm.

It's sharp all over at 18mm including corners.

The reason not to have it as a dedicated landscape lens is due to some barrel distortion at 18mm.

The reason to have it is that it's a bloody good lens in every way :)
Click to expand...

I'v never used it so I can't comment from personal experience but looking at a few reviews they do seem pretty uniform in considering the 16-85mm sharper in the boarders at the wide end.

Again though I think it really depends on use, if you really want that range(have for example you been ok with 18mm as your widest option but constantly wanted something longer than 135mm?) and you really want a single lens solutation then the 18-200mm doesnt seem to have any terrible weaknesses as some superzooms do. As has been said many times before, the best lens is the lens you have with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top