Landscape Lens

Rocket

Rocket

CTID
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,946
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking for recommendations and thoughts for a good Landscape Lens, I have been using my Nikon 17-55 2.8 mainly, with decent results, although this is quite a good lens and also for street photography i am not sure if it cuts it for Landscape, so i would like to compare or gain some feedback from other users of this lens or on another lens.

Max funds £480.00

Anyone got any input please.
 
Last edited:
Idea of budget would be useful, top end Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is brilliant and a good copy of the Nikon 16-35 f4 would be useful ... I've just picked up an older Nikon 35-70 f2.8 which is no slouch but maybe not wide enough for you. Various primes also available 20mm, 24mm, 28mm or a Sigma 10-20mm - so budget would be useful. :)
I have no experience of the 17-55 though.
 
I have my eye on the Nikkor 16-35 F4 VR
 
I use the Sigma 10-20mm - a cracking landscape lens :thumbs: and not too expensive either

Les :D
 
Thanks for the replies, max funds added to original post.(£450.00)
I do have the sigma 10-20 and have used it with decent results, but wanted to possibly exchange the 17-55. the 16-35 sounds interesting.
 
If the 17-55 is anything like the canon 17-55 it will be a cracking lens
 
Rocket said:
Thanks for the replies, max funds added to original post.(£450.00)
I do have the sigma 10-20 and have used it with decent results, but wanted to possibly exchange the 17-55. the 16-35 sounds interesting.
Click to expand...

Not sure if the 16-35 would be wide enough on dx?

How about the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8?
 
Phil Young said:
I'd have thought the 17-55 would be amazingly good for... anything?!

Is it just not wide enough for you??
Click to expand...

+1 for this. What's the reason the 17-55 is letting you down? I had a 10-20 Sigma and the novelty of shooting everything at around 10-12mm range soon wore off as trying to find foreground interest for pictures was hard at times. I sold it and just use my 16-85 which is wide enough for me.
 
I wouldn't have thought anyone can advise you on this unless you say what's "wrong" with the 17-55. Especially if you already have ultra-wide covered. I certainly can't see how the FX 16-35 will be any better on a DX body than the made-for-DX lenses you already have.

Maybe full-frame is the answer? Bit out of your budget though. :-)
 
Rocket said:
Looking for recommendations and thoughts for a good Landscape Lens, I have been using my Nikon 17-55 2.8 mainly, with decent results, although this is quite a good lens and also for street photography i am not sure if it cuts it for Landscape, so i would like to compare or gain some feedback from other users of this lens or on another lens.

Max funds £480.00

Anyone got any input please.
Click to expand...

I would have thought the 17-55 f/2.8 would be a great lens for landscape. What are you looking for? I suppose the assumption is that you would like a wider lens? If that is the case you have several choices for APSC. I would consider the following...

Nikon 12-24 G f/4 = £860
Nikon 10-24 G f/3.5-4.5 = £650
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 ATX = £550

Lookin at your max funds the Tokina would be an excellent choice. I would avoid the Sigma 10-20 personally.

Rocket said:
Thanks for the replies, max funds added to original post.(£450.00)
I do have the sigma 10-20 and have used it with decent results, but wanted to possibly exchange the 17-55. the 16-35 sounds interesting.
Click to expand...

The 16-35 is an FX lens, not DX. The 16-35 on the D300 will be 24-55 (or therabouts).
 
Last edited:
Naphta said:
I have my eye on the Nikkor 16-35 F4 VR
Click to expand...

It's great on FF, but maybe pointless on crop with 17-55 on board

Rocket said:
Looking for recommendations and thoughts for a good Landscape Lens, I have been using my Nikon 17-55 2.8 mainly, with decent results, although this is quite a good lens and also for street photography i am not sure if it cuts it for Landscape, so i would like to compare or gain some feedback from other users of this lens or on another lens.

Max funds £480.00

Anyone got any input please.
Click to expand...

why would it not cut it for landscape? Maybe give it a try?
If you still insist on going wider how about getting a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You can't go wrong with that
 
By "landscape" most people seem to mean relatively wide and most people seem to stop down for front to back DoF. Given the usual combination of "landscape" = wide and max DoF I think almost anything reasonably wide will do :D
 
Having used the 17-55 2.8G lens for several years on my D300 I never found fault with it. I certainly wouldn't trade it for an f4 lens with essentially the same wide end and shorter long end. In what way is the 17-55 letting you down?
 
hunter20ga said:
Having used the 17-55 2.8G lens for several years on my D300 I never found fault with it. I certainly wouldn't trade it for an f4 lens with essentially the same wide end and shorter long end. In what way is the 17-55 letting you down?
Click to expand...

Got to say I'm a little surprised too as I would have thought that the 17-55 would be a lens that people are upgrading to for landscape stuff (amongst other things) rather than looking to offload. If I could find a cheap one, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. If it's wider that's needed, I think the OP said he has a Sigma 10-20 as well. So a bit baffled as to what the goal is here.

If it's ultimate IQ, I can't think of too many options that will give significant gains. The 14-24 is an obvious option but using filters is a world of financial pain. There is also the option of primes, such as the Zeiss 21mm but I don't get the impression that is on the OP's agenda. Besides which both are at least double the budget.
 
Having recently had the same quandry, I narrowed down my choice of wide angle landscape lenses to either Tokina 12-24 ATX DX F4 or a Nikon 12-24 DX F4.

In the end I went for a 2nd hand Nikon ( bought from ffordes - they seem to have a reasonable selection of 2nd hand examples in your price range ) and have been very happy with it - wonderful sharp results.
 
Thanks for the input all. Good comments.
The 17-55 is indeed a good lens and was just trying get some feedback as to if there is better, it may well be my usage that i am not getting 100% out of the lens, My 10-20 is also a great lens.
With the replies above i think its fare to say, why fix something thats already fixed.
So its back to my trusty 17-55.
 
Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is the bees knees.

Riz :)
 
Rocket said:
Thanks for the input all. Good comments.
The 17-55 is indeed a good lens and was just trying get some feedback as to if there is better, it may well be my usage that i am not getting 100% out of the lens, My 10-20 is also a great lens.
With the replies above i think its fare to say, why fix something thats already fixed.
So its back to my trusty 17-55.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Only reason I have my eye on the 16-35mm is because I plan on going FX when the next D800 equiv comes out! If I were to stay DX I'd pickup a 17-55, 11-16 :)
 
Naphta said:
Only reason I have my eye on the 16-35mm is because I plan on going FX when the next D800 equiv comes out! If I were to stay DX I'd pickup a 17-55, 11-16 :)
Click to expand...

:D They didn't replace the D700 for 5 years are you willing to wait that long?
 
The Nikon 17-55 is my favourite lens I've owned, I used it for everything, but mainly landscapes and found 17mm plenty wide enough for landscapes I took.

I really miss the 17-55 now I have a D700 but too poor to get a 24-70.
 
If you want something wider, then the Tokina 11-16 is the way forward. That and the 17-55 you already have will be a stellar f/2.8 combo for off tripod work, and excellent lenses for when on a tripod stopped down!
 
Hi, on a recent TP meet I took both my Nikon 17-55 and Tokina 11-16, and hardly used the 11-16. The 17-55 is a cracking lens. That said, the 11-16 is also a cracking lens :)

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top