Lenses for Nikon FX for landscape use

B

bracken81

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Edit My Images
Yes
Discovered this forum some months ago and having enjoyed looking at the contributions, thought it was time to join!

I am a keen amateur - primarily landscape photography, with macro coming a close second.

I have been photographing for 15 years approx, but have only just got my first full frame camera... and so have given my husband my previous set up, and am starting from scratch! Getting quality glass thats as "future proof" as possible is my aim, minimizing duplication and keeping weight down for long walks / treks with the gear is my priority.

So far I have purchased a Nikon D600 with a 50mm 1.4G to get me started (it absolutely blew me away)! I then purchased a 105mm Micro - which as well as being a fabulous macro lens is great for the odd bits of portraiture that I do.

I am in a quandry for how to "complete" my lens set - as I am really missing the wide end of the range at the moment... Options are:

1. Stick with primes and simply get a 20mm / 24mm
2. Go for wide zoom and tele zoom with a 16-35 f4 & 70-200 f4
3. Get a 24 - 70mm f2.8 which would be the most used range and top up with a 20mm prime if I wanted to go a bit wider....
4. Go for a 24 -120 f4 which would be ideal, but the reviews seem a bit mixed...

I have got enough saved from overtime for my next acquisition... but can't quite make my mind up! Option 2 / 3 is my current favoured option but would really value your opinions!

Thanks! :)
 
For landscape the 14-24 f2.8 takes a lot of beating but is not light and filters are limited and not cheap - the 16-35 f4 will take filters much more easily but the lenses are few and far between and in my experience of variable quality (others who have had a good one will disagree).

I sold my 24-70 f2.8 in favour of the 24-120 f4 which gave me VR and greater range for 'walkabout' and I haven't regretted it once.

If you just like primes the 24mm f1.4 is excellent.
The 70-200 f2.8 VRll is a 'must have' IMO :)



Welcome to the forum by the way :)
 
Last edited:
14-24 or 24 f1.4 would be my choices, but also have a look at the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 as manual focus shouldn't be much of an issue with landscapes and the rendering is lovely.
 
16-35!!


Mines on eBay at the moment as I need to sell it to pay for a new gearbox, but I'm going to miss it like crazy! I sold my 24-70 after having the 16-35 for s few weeks as the 24-70 just wasn't getting used anymore.
 
A wide prime would be your best bet if keeping weight down is a significant factor.
 
I don't shoot ff unfortunately but if i did i would probs have a 16-35 , or if money was tight the tokina 17-35
 
The Tokina 16-28 2.8 is actually cheaper atm than the 17-35 F4. The 16-28 does not take filters though. Almost bought this one myself when I was in NYC, as I was finding my 24-70 wasn't quite wide enough to take in all the tall buildings. I am tempted to still go for it, sell my 24-70 and get the new sigma 35mm 1.4. Nice combo they would make.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
The Tokina 16-28 2.8 is actually cheaper atm than the 17-35 F4. The 16-28 does not take filters though. Almost bought this one myself when I was in NYC, as I was finding my 24-70 wasn't quite wide enough to take in all the tall buildings. I am tempted to still go for it, sell my 24-70 and get the new sigma 35mm 1.4. Nice combo they would make.
Click to expand...

Yeah i know but i didn't mention it because of the no filter issue which is a huge negative for a landscape lens for me.

That new 35mm sigma looks a beauty.

Funny enough i was just doing some imaginary FF shopping. I was thinking the tokina 17-35 the nikon 50mm f/1.8d to start me off. However i would be happy enough with 3 primes a 50 a 35 and something around the 15mm mark.
 
Last edited:
bracken81 wrote "I am a keen amateur - primarily landscape photography, with macro coming a close second. "

Landscape - you will be shooting at f8/f11/f16 and using similar small apertures for macro therefore you do not need fast lenses which are heavier and cost a lot more.
 
I've got a 24-120 f4 on my d600 and I'm happy

You need to decide what's the most important factor for you

Mine was the focal range above all else, I generally don't take many shots outside of that range
 
JBuk said:
I've got a 24-120 f4 on my d600 and I'm happy

You need to decide what's the most important factor for you

Mine was the focal range above all else, I generally don't take many shots outside of that range
Click to expand...

If I did not already have a 24 - 85 I'd opt for the 24 - 120.
 
The 24-70 is my most used lens, I'd say about 75% of what I do. For wider I have the 16-35. If I had to choose a prime for landcsape I would probably go for the Zeiss 21/2.8.
 
Just wanted to thank everyone for their comments and suggestions. Very much appreciated! A bit more head scratching then I will take the plunge. Thanks! :)
 
24-70 f/2.8 (in my case a Sigma) as a walkaround FF lens. While grads are a problem, the 12-24 Sigma does take filters - gels cut using the supplied template, slotted in behind the rear element (a means also used by the 14-24 Nikkor IIRC). Grads can be used but have to be bodged on using BluTack or similar.

If the budget stretches and can be justified, the Nikkors are ultimately better but as to whether the extra expense can be justified...
 
Don't rule out the Voigtlander 20/3.5 ... an excellent small and compact lightweight lens, albeit manual focus.

Another exceptionally sharp lens would be the Nikon 24/3.5 PC-E tilt shift lens, although it may have certain restrictions in functionality on a D600, and it too is manual focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top