Lens for Landscapes

Mr_T

Mr_T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
528
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I haven't really lusted after anything for quite some time so I thought I would ask opinions on a nice all round lens for landscapes. I currently have a Nikon D200 and am looking for a lens to take with me into the realms of full frame (or back into the realms of 35mm :P). I currently have a 17-80mm lens which has given me nice results but since I got my telephoto lens it has entirely been blown out of the water image quality wise. One thing that's very important to me is that I can use filters with the lens, which rules out the extremely expensive 14-24 :D. I currently have 85mm HiTech grads but I presume as with everything in photography these will have to be upgraded. I had a quick look at camera price buster and was astonished by how much the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 had gone up but I think I may be looking for something similar.

Third party manufacturers have been putting out some really fine optics so I would be more than happy to look into any of these as well as Nikon. I probably won't be buying for a little while since prices are really silly at the moment but it would be good to get opinions.
 
The Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 was discontinued a while ago, so if you can find one new it will be pricey for one of two reasons:
(a) the retailer knows they're rare now and is charging a premium;
(b) the retailer always charged a high prce for it and that's why they have some left.

The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a fine lens. It's a DX so if you feel that going full-frame is in your future you'd need to think about how you handle that. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has a good reputation for much less money, but again it's DX only.
 
I was just about to say you could invest in the Nikon 24-70, but then it is pretty damn expensive. You could look at the Sigma equivalent, maybe get one before the new HSM one comes out so that the prices are still relatively low. So far, everyone I know that has one has been very pleased with it. Considering also that it's about 1/5th the price of the Nikon version, it's certainly worth a look.

Bare in mind though, that on your D200, it will appear as though you are using a 36-105mm, so not that wide for landscapes, but when you move to a FF body it will really sing.
 
Hmm, the 24-70 probably isn't a bad idea at all to be honest especially considering it's roughly what I have with the 18-70 on DX. It may also change the way I take landscapes which is never a bad thing really. Back in reality I've just checked the current prices and they are nothing short of horrific. I think it would be a much better idea to keep with what I have and if need be rent from time to time (I wonder where I could possible rent lenses from? :p).
 
The 17-35 price rise makes no sense as its been discontinued for several months, so its pure greed that is forcing the prices up, not economics.

Its a great lens, and for full framers a great choice.

For a DX camera, the Tamron 17-50 will work very well indeed, as will the 18-70 DX.

You could also consider the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX but IMHO its just not optimal for landscape work for numerous reasons.

Consider the Tamron 17-35 as a very viable alternative to the Nikkor 17-35 for full framers, or even the Nikkor 18-35.
 
I will be looking out for a few of these just in case I spot a bargain, thanks for replying puddleduck your knowledge about all things glass is much appreciated :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top