5 Lenses you couldent live without

For the Amature looking to take mostly Nature or Landscape shots what would you recomend?

By Nature do you mean wildlife ? = something long.

Landscape ? = something wide and or long.

This is what has worked for me with in my budget.

When shooting wild mountain monkeys two lens and cameras.

D300 has a 17-55 2.8 Nikkor lens, D50 has a 70-300VR Nikkor lens.

Some times I pull the Sigma 10-20 out of the bag for a sunset but
the 17-55 seems to work just fine for this.

The sigma 10-20 IMO works better in close to things.{Not Monkeys !!}

This is what I have so this is what I use, good luck in your search......;-)
.





.

--
Jon in Thailand

http://www.flickr.com/photos/af2899/
.

AmBurton said:

For the Amature looking to take mostly Nature or Landscape shots what would you recomend?

Click to expand...

Well, depends on your budget. I use the following: Nikon 12-24/4 DX, Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR, Nikon 105/2.8 AF-S VR, Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro, 17-55/2.8 DX. You may want to replace the 17-55/2.8 DX with e.g. the 16-85 DX VR for purely nature related subjects.

Basically, you'll want an ultrawide, a macro, a long telephoto, a midrange zoom and probably also a telephoto zoom. Which lenses exactly depends on your budget, and on your requirements in terms of portability.

Hansa Yindee said:

.

Click to expand...

DAMN!!!

I couldn't live without my 50mm f/1.4. If I got all my gear stolen tomorrow, the first thing i would buy (aside from a new D700) is the 50mm.

I don't own 5 lenses, so i can't comment much further than that.

My favorite all-round lens is the 17-55. I have fallen in love with my new 70-200 VR II, and it is pretty much always with me. After those two, it depends on what I'm doing, as to what I take with me. For nature, I would probably throw in my 300 f/4, the Tokina 12-24 and my 85 f/1.4 or the 105 VR.
--



http://community.webshots.com/user/REBlue01
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reblue/sets/

For such an unspecific question, I'm going to take the easy way out and suggest the Nikon "Holy Trinity": 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. Congratulations, you've just spent $5,865.

As for the other two, it really depends on what you need specifically. "Nature photography" could include photographing bugs and flowers, and for that, you'd want a macro, most likely the 200mm f/4 ($1650) or 105mm f/2.8 ($890). "Nature photography" means you'd probably also want something longer than 200mm, so there's a variety of options there, including the 200-400mm f/4 zoom ($6100), 300mm f/2.8 & f/4 ($5900 & $1485, respectively), 400mm f/2.8 ($8800), 500mm f/4 ($8500) and 600mm f/4 ($10,250).

(All prices in USD from adorama.com)

AmBurton said:

For the Amature looking to take mostly Nature or Landscape shots what would you recomend?

Click to expand...

Sigma 12-24 HSM EX
Nikon 24-70 AFS
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon Micro 105 VR

JustinRebbert said:

For such an unspecific question, I'm going to take the easy way out and suggest the Nikon "Holy Trinity": 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. Congratulations, you've just spent $5,865.

As for the other two, it really depends on what you need specifically. "Nature photography" could include photographing bugs and flowers, and for that, you'd want a macro, most likely the 200mm f/4 ($1650) or 105mm f/2.8 ($890). "Nature photography" means you'd probably also want something longer than 200mm, so there's a variety of options there, including the 200-400mm f/4 zoom ($6100), 300mm f/2.8 & f/4 ($5900 & $1485, respectively), 400mm f/2.8 ($8800), 500mm f/4 ($8500) and 600mm f/4 ($10,250).

(All prices in USD from adorama.com)

Click to expand...

I guess I should have specified a photographer with a budget. My Mistake I ment lense you actually have and would recommend to a noob like myself, not the dream list of every professional photographer, again my mistake.

for amateur:
For landscapes etc:

• Tokina 11-16/2.8 (I have and like it, good for indoors too (chuches etc), fast)
• Nikon 16-85 VR (I do not have it but used it, good IQ and versatile)
• Nikon 70-300 VR (I have and like it, cheap and good IQ)

For macro:

• Nikon 105/2.8 VR micro (if you want a good mid-range)
• Nikon 60 micro (if you want good a good short-range)
• Sigma 150/2.8 macro (if you want more range (ie for insects) - need tripod)

start with these and check if you really need more later... hard to tell now, as you have not given that much detail about what you like to shot.

Chris

For landscapes and indoor architecture: Tokina 11-16 2.8
For walkaround: Nikon 18-200 VR / Tamron 17-50 2.8
For street shooting at night: Sigma 30 1.4
For portraits: Sigma 50 1.4

Hi,

On my side, since 5 years that I'm traveling around the world ( I'm a kind of "Pro" photographer, because Photography is my main job), my basic "5 lenses" in "DX" configurations was :

N°1 : AFS 17-35 2.8 (makes 25 to 52mm my everyday photo lens)

N°2 : AFS 70-200 VR 2.8 ( 105 to 300mm+ TC 14EII or TC 17E II depending of the countries)
N°3: AFS 12-24 4.0 DX (to get some really wide angles)

N°4: AFD 50 1.4D (to fill the middle range, of 75mm equivalent , and to make some special wide aperture shots)

N°5: AFD 60 2.8 D Macro (to get a light Macro, and my sharpest lens ever... Along with my 300mm)

All that lenses mounted on my venerable Nikon D2X, on of the firsts available, purchased exactly 5 years ago + SB800

For me, in the "DX format , The D2X is unbeatable in term of resolution & color rendition :

I using also the D300 & D300s, and something "slight " is missing... I never get the same color "vibrancy" with these cameras using, of course the same Nef processing with capture NX.

--

Also for really light travels, with only 2 lenses, i'm using a D300 or D300s with:

N°1 : AFS 16-85 VRII (makes 24 to 128mm my everyday photo lens, really incredible resolution, close to my 50 AFD 1.4, with unfrtunamy les contrast, and slight greenish cold color renderation)

N°2 : AFS 70-300 VR II 4.5-5.62.8 ( Crazy sharpness, as good as the 70-200 2.8 if not better in term of resolution, with only slightly colder colors)

--

Also my basic "7 lenses" complète configuration, was : the same 5 lenses described , with the addition of the AF 10.5 fisheye, and the AFS 300 F4.0 telephoto
--

Richard
http://www.photoway.com/

That's not just the dream list of every professional photographer, most Nikon amateurs would also want at least the first three lenses.

It's no problem, though, I kind of figured your situation was more like what you just said. Those lenses are all just dreams for me, too.

But as has been pointed out by others, your question is extremely general, and if you get give lists from five different members, you could easily wind up with at least fifteen unique lenses being talked about. You might find it best serves you if you get a bit more specific about what it is, exactly, you want to photograph.

Start with a second hand vehicle and then buy lenses as you please

Many years ago I had a Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex film camera that had a 45mm fixed focal lens plus an adaptor " x1.7" for tele/portrait. It was one of the good cameras an amateur could dream about. Today this would be within the range of 35 to 85mm for the FX format.

For the sake of understanding my own needs, I recorded the focal values [mm] of 900 pictures I took during a vacation from a scenic train, daily city walks and while driving with the obligation to park the vehicle and walk to the location where I wanted to take the picture... The result of what captured my attention fits in a Gaussian distribution, with limits between 20 and 135 mm, and the '+1 -1 Sigma' (sharp distribution peak) covers 45 to 60mm where I find practically 80% of my better shots. I think I have no real need for more than three small primes when I travel for vacation, ie 24, 55 and 105mm

Other occasions could be approached the same way, keeping the spirit of amateurism of course.

In my opinion it better to talk about different types of lenses instead of specific lenses, everybody has different needs and this influences the specific lens selection.

Image quality is important, but all Nikkors and most third party lenses are very good - good enough for most users if they print their images or look at them in a normal size at a normal viewing distance. The limiting factor in image quality is in many cases not the lens, but the photographer - so in my opinion there is absolutely no need to get the best of the best. Just get the lens that fits your shooting style.

That said, this is my basic lens selection I use for landscape and nature:

• A standard zoom that ranges from wide angle to short telephoto.

Such a lens allows me to quickly change the focal length to get the three basic image looks - wide angle, normal and telephoto.

This lens is all I need to get the look I want, but not enough to get every image I envision. This is the lens I would never leave at home and I would replace the same day if something happens to that lens.
I use the AF-S 16-85 mm VR, but any of the Nikkor standard zooms is good enough.

• A telephoto VR zoom

It might sound strange, but for me a telephoto zoom is a more important landscape lens than a ultra wide lens. With a telephoto lens I can compress the "perspective", pick out a important part of the landscape without getting to much empty space around it.

For me it's important that the telephoto lens has VR, because I often use it without a tripod. Equally important it the size and the weight of the lens.

I use the AF-S 55-200 VR, it's good enough and it's small and light weighted (very important for me in this case).

These two lenses are probably everything I need for landscape and nature. It's the basic kit with just the absolutely needed lenses (don't forget the flash).

Next are lenses I really like to use, but I wouldn't miss if I left them at home:

• Macro lens

Obviously for close ups of small subjects. It could double as a portrait lens or a telephoto lens, depending on the selected lens. I don't think that everybody needs a macro lens.

In my case I use the AF-D 60mm f/2.8 as I like it as a portrait lens and I don't photograph insects. If I carry my macro lens I always put my flash into the bag.

• ultra wide angle lens

Ultra wide angle lenses are special effects lenses just like Macro lenses. A ultra wide zoom lens can be used as a wide angle lens, but the whole reason to have the range between 10mm and 16 mm is to get that ultra wide effect of getting very close to the subject and still get most of the surrounding into the frame.

In my opinion this is the most difficult lens to use for a beginner, it's way to easy to get boring images with a tiny subject and huge areas of empty sky or ground.
For the dramatic effect a flash can be very useful even in bright daylight.

I use the Sigma 10-20 mm just because that lens was available and had 10 mm. Now I would probably buy the AF-S 10-24 because it covers the whole ultra wide to wide normal range.

• Alternative: Normal lens

Now this is the minimalist approach to photography, a normal lens (on DX that would be a lens in the 30-35mm range).

Such lenses are small, often very fast (max. apertures around f/1.4 to f/2) and only offer one viewing angle.

With all their limitations the offer one important thing: simplicity. The photographer can concentrate on the subject without being distracted by all the possibilities that different lenses offer.

If the photographer likes that way using a normal lens is pure fun, if not it's just a useless limitation.

On budget for full frame Nikon (D700, D3, etc.)

All current models.
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 about $400
Nikon 35mm f/2.0 about $300
Nikon 50mm f/1.4g about $450
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro about $525

All are light, small, sharp, and any can be a carry-around lens (one lens you keep on the camera that can be quickly used to capture a fleeting picture(. All would also work on DX cameras (D90, D300, etc.) albeit as longer lenses (multiply mm by 1.5).

For a long zoom, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. Light, sharp, relatively small. Easy to hand hold with VR. I only use zooms for long lenses where you would need too many big and expensive primes.

Difficult to come up with five specific lenses, but here are a few .

I have one of John Shaw's old books and he (at that time) reckoned that a 100mm class macro is by far the most useful all round landscape and nature lens. Its not just used for close up work, as it is also a portrait lens-so you are treating nature from a portrait perspective, ie small groups of trees and so on.

For me, I cannot be without my 300 f2.8vr as it is by far the most useful both for birds and animals, but also for plants and insects where a close approach is difficult.

The only other lens that I would consider essential is some sort of wide angle prime or zoom in the 17-35mm length. For me I like a 20mm on my crop sensor and would really love to get hold of the Zeiss 21mm, particularly if I went full frame.

I sometimes wonder about a 'standard' focal length ie around 50mm, but although I have a couple of zooms covering this range, I rarely if ever use it. just does not seem to fit my style. Maybe on full frame I would.

--
Phil Bishop
http://philbishopsbirdingblog.blogspot.com/

My top 5 some are DX some FX
I own or have used extensively the following three
Tokina 12 - 24 f/4 (wonderful lens and an absolute bargain)
Tamron 28 - 75 f/2.8

Nikon 80 - 200 AF-S (great value second hand if you shop around for a good price)

I would recommend the following
Nikon 70 - 300 VR (latest version) OR
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or Tokina 100mm f/2.8 for Macro
35mm f/1.8DX or 50mm f/1.8

You could certainly buy the top three for $2000 or less.
Have fun.

--
albion

ghuba said:

On budget for full frame Nikon (D700, D3, etc.)

All current models.
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 about $400
Nikon 35mm f/2.0 about $300
Nikon 50mm f/1.4g about $450
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro about $525

For a long zoom, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. Light, sharp, relatively small. Easy to hand hold with VR. I only use zooms for long lenses where you would need too many big and expensive primes.

Click to expand...

-----

If I had to pick the first 3 I would buy if I had budget limits, for nature and landscape photography i would purchase:

24mm
60mm micro
70-300mm VR

Limited to 2 it would be:
24mm
60mm micro

ghuba said:

ghuba said:

On budget for full frame Nikon (D700, D3, etc.)

All current models.
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 about $400
Nikon 35mm f/2.0 about $300
Nikon 50mm f/1.4g about $450
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro about $525

For a long zoom, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. Light, sharp, relatively small. Easy to hand hold with VR. I only use zooms for long lenses where you would need too many big and expensive primes.

Click to expand...

-----

Click to expand...

For some reason the following did not show on the original post

ghuba said:

If I had to pick the first 3 I would buy if I had budget limits, for nature and landscape photography i would purchase:

24mm
60mm micro
70-300mm VR

Limited to 2 it would be:
24mm
60mm micro

Click to expand...

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.