D200 for landscape photography? A good fit?

Started Aug 28, 2007 | Discussions thread
spt_gb Senior Member • Posts: 2,876
Re: Are you joking Denis?

DenisZ wrote:

I'm not aware of Nikon's 10-20mm lens,

Anythng wrong with the 12-24 (18-36 effective)? Sigma will sell you a 10-20 if that isn't wide enough.

18-70 is really 27-105 with f/3.5-4.5 can't even remotely match R1's
24-120 in terms of quality.

With the DSLR you get to chose lenses based on requirements and budget. Chose carefully and you can wipe the floor with the Sony.

Plus you will have 4 lenses to cover it all, and results will be NO
better than with R1 which is straight forward purchase.

4 lenses? At the very most you can do that with three and have considerable overlap (plus a larger range).


No really, suggest me Nikkor zoom option that has 24mm@f/2.8 for
starting point. Sigma and Tamron aren't in same class (can't imaging
paying $2000 for body and save $50 on f/5.6 lens).

Not sure what you've been looking at, but some of the new Sigma and Tamron lenses are excelent. Plus the good ones are f2.8 or faster, not f5.6.

I'm the oposite=>
invest heavy on lens and let your body be exchangeable. Because
nowdays, D1 won't give you run for those $5000 you paid for them, but
ie. 85f/1.4 from 1995 still rocks as 12years ago.

In the days of film would you have bought a bulk pack of cheap film? Same thing in the digital world. The camera IS your film with a DSLR, so you need to balance your funds between both lenses and body.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow