Nikon Lens for Landscape Photography

A

albertdong

Suspended / Banned
Messages
28
Edit My Images
No
Looking for some ideas on a good lens to fit my D7000 primarily for landscape photography. Budget is approx £500 - £600.

I had assumed one of the ultra-wide zooms would be the best way to go and had narrowed my choice down to a Tokina 11-16mm, from what I've read this is a very capable lens for the money.

But then I got to thinking:

Would the Tokina 12-24mm give that bit more focal length flexibility for the same cost?

Is the Tokina 12-24mm compromised in any way over the 11-16mm in terms of image quality and results?

Do ultra-wide zooms lack flexibility and ultimately be a frustration, is there a better alternative with a bit more focal range for the same sort of price?

Any thoughts much appreciated.
 
albertdong said:
Looking for some ideas on a good lens to fit my D7000 primarily for landscape photography. Budget is approx £500 - £600.

I had assumed one of the ultra-wide zooms would be the best way to go and had narrowed my choice down to a Tokina 11-16mm, from what I've read this is a very capable lens for the money.

But then I got to thinking:

Would the Tokina 12-24mm give that bit more focal length flexibility for the same cost?

Is the Tokina 12-24mm compromised in any way over the 11-16mm in terms of image quality and results?

Do ultra-wide zooms lack flexibility and ultimately be a frustration, is there a better alternative with a bit more focal range for the same sort of price?

Any thoughts much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Hi Albert...i have the Nikon 12-24 f4 which by all accounts is supposed superior to the Tokina 12-24 f4....i also haver the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (i know...dont ask why) and consider the 11-16 f2.8 a far superior lens than the Nikon 12-24...There is obviously the issue of the 17-24 range but for me the image quality from the Tokina 11-16 by far out weighs the extra reach benefit of the Nikon.
 
I`ve gone through a Sigma 10-20, Nikon 12-24 & and now have the Tokina 11-16, and IMHO it is the best of the bunch by far. The only thing lacking is the extra reach, but then with ultra wide, do you really need it?

I`m not technically minded, but the images it produces are really good.

There are a couple up on the for sale section too, although nothing to do with me at all. Just thought it might be of use.
 
Last edited:
This is why I like this forum, the free advice, unfortunately it will affect my wallet if I take it!!
 
Hi Steve,

Just my personal thoughts but I have used a few UWA lenses and have been ultimately disappointed, not with the image quality as I don't think there is much between any of them, but it always seems to me that with UWA you just end up with a lot of small things a long way off. I don't tend to go wider than 18mm now and often just shoot 4 or 5 and stitch them in PS sometimes even at 40-50mm.

Andy
 
I'm interested in the Tokina 11-16 too, I believe there is a new version due any time now. Might be worth waiting to see how it stacks up against the other models you mention....
 
Andysnap said:
Hi Steve,

Just my personal thoughts but I have used a few UWA lenses and have been ultimately disappointed, not with the image quality as I don't think there is much between any of them, but it always seems to me that with UWA you just end up with a lot of small things a long way off. I don't tend to go wider than 18mm now and often just shoot 4 or 5 and stitch them in PS sometimes even at 40-50mm.

Andy
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with you on that. I tend to use mine more for buildings ...
Any attempts (being i`m crap) at landscapes, I usually use either a Nikon 35f2, or Sigma 24f2.8 macro. Also, don`t forget your kit lens.
 
Yep, buildings and interiors really need an UWA.

Andy
 
Can't comment on the quality of an ultra-wide lenses but him indoors has the Sigma 10-20 and uses it quite a bit in situations where it wouldn't even occur to me so just wanted to add that you might use it more than you think (it's a bloody good lens though)
 
Andysnap said:
Hi Steve,

Just my personal thoughts but I have used a few UWA lenses and have been ultimately disappointed, not with the image quality as I don't think there is much between any of them, but it always seems to me that with UWA you just end up with a lot of small things a long way off. I don't tend to go wider than 18mm now and often just shoot 4 or 5 and stitch them in PS sometimes even at 40-50mm.

Andy
Click to expand...

Hi Andy

I get your point re the landscape images to be fair....I have some of my best landscape (distant) which have been taken with my 70-200 vr so anything is possible and acceptable in my eyes....but the op was looking at UWA lens options and for me the 11-16 works both with city scape shots and architecture which sits well with my needs.
 
Thanks folks....I guess reading this it sounds as if UWA is ideal for photography in built up areas and indoors, sounds to me that it may not be the ideal choice for landscape?

I had been toying with something like a 17-55mm as a compromise lens for landscape, I currently have the 18-105mm kit lens and a 50mm prime. The kit lens is OK but I do feel that I'd get the results I'm looking for with a better quality lens.

Look like the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is out of my reach from a budget point of view ( £1000?? ) are there any decent alternatives?
 
albertdong said:
Thanks folks....I guess reading this it sounds as if UWA is ideal for photography in built up areas and indoors, sounds to me that it may not be the ideal choice for landscape?

I had been toying with something like a 17-55mm as a compromise lens for landscape, I currently have the 18-105mm kit lens and a 50mm prime. The kit lens is OK but I do feel that I'd get the results I'm looking for with a better quality lens.

Look like the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is out of my reach from a budget point of view ( £1000?? ) are there any decent alternatives?
Click to expand...


Albert the 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens and can be picked up for around £650 secondhand...
 
there's also the sigma 8-16, the widest non fisheye for nikon i believe. Have seen some good reviews. From photozone

"The Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM may be the new star in this lens segment. It's very sharp across the whole range straight from the max. aperture. Lateral CAs are also very well controlled. That's quite an achievement for such an extreme ultra-wide angle zoom lens. If you're into architecture photography you will notice some barrel distortions when using the 8mm setting but that's actually a general problem in this class and at 12mm it shows less distortions than the competition.
"
 
I've got the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 I think its £500 new

Its an excellent lens and I rate it highly, Its my first UWA so cant compare it to anything else

As well as landscapes and buildings, an UWA lets you get a totally different perspective on other subjects as well, I use mine for sculptures , landmarks etc and get some interesting results
 
mrgas said:
I've got the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 I think its £500 new

Its an excellent lens and I rate it highly, Its my first UWA so cant compare it to anything else

As well as landscapes and buildings, an UWA lets you get a totally different perspective on other subjects as well, I use mine for sculptures , landmarks etc and get some interesting results
Click to expand...

I've heard some very positive reports on the Sigma f3.5....

Presuming that this is not a DX lens, am i right in saying that on a crop body as the OP has it will give him a 15-30 range? if so this would be a good option for greater flexibility at a reasonable price.
 
The 10-20 f/3.5 is a DX lens. However, seeing as the OP has a DX camera it doesn't really make any differenc (and 10mm on FX is so wide you would result in a black patch in the middle).

There is a common misconception that landscape = wiiiiiide but truth be told you can take great landscape shots at any focal length. UWA is brilliant for some type of shots and if you know how to use one you can put an interesting twist on many different types of shot.
 
"The 10-20 f/3.5 is a DX lens.".....Thanks for the info Ned...i must have been thinking about the Sigma 12-24 f2.8?
 
Yeah, the Sigma 12-24 is FX and I think it's the widest lens in production for FF :)

The 10-20 f/3.5 is a new version of the older variable aperture design. It's debatable which version is better, people who've had both seem to prefer the newer and people who read the internet say it's not worth the extra money. I was more than happy with my variable aperture version on my crop body.
 
The Tokina 11-16 is by far the best DX format ultra wide angle that I've used, the only others being the Siggy 10-20 and Nikon 12-24. It's sharp, near distortion free, fast and built like a tank. The only negative is that it is never anything less than very wide. Oh and that it is not FX as it broke my heart selling mine when I made the switch!

But, as has been said, I'm not convinced it's a great landscape lens. I can't think of many successful landscape shots that I took with mine, in fact just one springs to mind. The trouble with ultra wides and landscapes is that unless you have something very prominent in the foreground or some very strong lead in lines, then everything can end up looking very small and lost.

I'd echo the above and suggest the 16-85 VR or 17-55 or the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50 OS. All great lenses but then I think your 18-105 is pretty good too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top