Lens recommendations - Landscapes

Turbo-G

Turbo-G

Turbo-G

Associate
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Posts
1,191
Morning All,

I own a d3100, 35mm 1.8, 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR. The 35mm is a great lens, but I don't feel it's a wide enough angle for interesting landscape shots, especially on a DX body. Although the 18-55mm gives a wide angle, the front element rotates so not ideal for filters etc.

I'm thinking a decent wide angle zoom would give some versatility for landscape shots, and I guess it doesn't need to be particularly 'fast' either, as I'll likely to be shooting at a more narrower aperture for maximum sharpness. Preferably a Nikon lens, but would consider some of the 'proven' third party manufacturers also.

I hope to upgrade to an FX body at some point in the future, I could do now tbh but having only owned the d3100 just shy of 12 months I would like to invest more time into the hobby before making the investment - I'm still a newbie after all!

Any recommendations would be appreciated!
 
There's a good Tamron lens, 17-50 f/2.8 although I'm not sure if that would be compatible if you go full frame in the future..

I'm not really knowledgable when it comes to Nikon kit, the reviews on fredmiranda.com I find are always worth checking out.
 
Well, all of the DX lenses are technically compatible on an FX body albeit in cropped mode.

I'm happy for the lens to be a DX lens, as I don't know when/if I will upgrade to FX yet. Can always just sell kit on if not compatible in the future.

Problem with a 17-50, although a faster lens than the 18-55, would it be a wide enough angle? Crosses over my 18-55 and 35 prime also.
 
The Nikon 16-85 gets very good reviews. 16mm on the wide end would give you decent landscape shots. It's surprising how much difference that extra 2mm will make on the wide end compared to your 18-55 and it would give you better reach too. The VR is good for 3-4 stops (probably closer to 3) so you could get decent handheld shots if you don't always want to carry a tripod. It seems very well made too and sharp across the range. It's not particularly fast bu then you stated you don't need that.

You could sell the 18-55 and put that towards the cost as that would be redundant. It currently qualifies for £50 cash back from Nikon too.

Edit: The front element doesn't rotate either.
 
Last edited:
King Damager said:
The 14-24 2.8 is kind of king here I believe. Mind you it's slightly faster than you probably need, and it's really quite pricey...

kd
Click to expand...

It's not just the cost of the lens you need to take into account, but the cost of the filters (very expensive). If you have the budget for all that, you wouldn't be shooting with a D3100 as 14mm isn't that wide on DX so it's a bit of a waste anyway.

@ Op

I hear Tokina have some exceptional wide angles, I don't think all of them are AF, but that shouldn't be an issue for landscapes.
 
Yeah, true, had forgotten about filters to be fair. Op did mention he was considering investing I'm FX in future. But well aware it is probably out of budget!

As a more budget option, I know the sigma 10-20 is quite popular... Might be worth a look.

kd
 
PhotoPixels said:
You can't use filters on the 14-24 f2.8.
Click to expand...

You can, you just need to buy an external filter holder and buy large filters. Lee make a very nice set.
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#nd-videobox


But the 14-24 is really not suitable for a crop sensor. Indeed a wide angle lens for a crop camera will have to be a dedicated DX lens.

There a dozens to choose from, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Nikon all mke several.


The OP need to choose how wide (10/11/12mm) and host fast (f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6).



The Nikon 12-24mm is probably the best, but 12mm may or may not be wide enough. The Nikon 10-24mm is nice and wide, optically god, but not as good as the 12-24.
 
An Exception said:
It's not just the cost of the lens you need to take into account, but the cost of the filters (very expensive). If you have the budget for all that, you wouldn't be shooting with a D3100 as 14mm isn't that wide on DX so it's a bit of a waste anyway.

@ Op

I hear Tokina have some exceptional wide angles, I don't think all of them are AF, but that shouldn't be an issue for landscapes.
Click to expand...

14mm is what 21mm gov on a crop that's pretty wide and certainly wide enough for a vast array of landscape work! I've never really understood why as soon as the word landscape is mentioned the uwa recommendations are instant when most people would be fine with the wide end on s kit lens which is generally 28mm gov on a crop.
 
£1.3K + £400 filters is allot to spend on a 21mm lens. 21mm is nothing special, nothing esoteric. It's like putting a V12 in the family saloon to do the school run.. it is a waste.
 
An Exception said:
£1.3K + £400 filters is allot to spend on a 21mm lens. 21mm is nothing special, nothing esoteric. It's like putting a V12 in the family saloon to do the school run.. it is a waste.
Click to expand...

terrible analogy!

The lens is a good investment for the future if as the OP says full frame is on the horizon, no budget is mentioned so it's only natural for expensive options to appear!
 
Last edited:
The 14-24 is not a good investment on a D3100. All it'll be is a money sink. If and when he gets round to it, the 14-24 is an incredible lens, but on a crop there's only so much more you can do. Buy a decent second hand lens for the moment, the sigma, for example, and then sell it on if and when you get around to moving up to full frame.

The 14-24 pretty much locks you into Nikon for Full Frame without providing much of an advantage on a crop.
 
a1ex2001 said:
terrible analogy!

The lens is a good investment for the future if as the OP says full frame is on the horizon, no budget is mentioned so it's only natural for expensive options to appear!
Click to expand...

It is also very heavy and has an unprotected front element, it a almost o advantage on a crop camera relative to other UWA available.

The 14-24 is a terrible idea for a crop camera, unless the OP was guranteed to be upgrading in 1-2 months max. Even then I would suggest buy an origional sigma 10-20 second hand and en sell it n when you upgrade for postage costs.
 
a1ex2001 said:
14mm is what 21mm gov on a crop that's pretty wide and certainly wide enough for a vast array of landscape work! I've never really understood why as soon as the word landscape is mentioned the uwa recommendations are instant when most people would be fine with the wide end on s kit lens which is generally 28mm gov on a crop.
Click to expand...

While I agree that UWa are not the best lenses for landscapes n many situations, the OP explicitly asked for a lens wider than the 18mm end of his kit lens, thus people have suggest lenses wider than 18mm. And 18mm on cro is really not very wide at all, 16mm start to feel wide but gives a relatively normal perspective.

The first thing I looked at is if he has anything in the 50-200mm range, he does, therefore an UWA makes sense, and something in the budget and weight guidelines of the rest of his gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom