Reading mode: Light Dark

Where do I go from hear? (gear question)

Go to last post
N

NikonNature

Veteran Member
Messages
5,349
Solutions
11
Reaction score
2,558
Location
Coatesville, PA, US
I have a dilemma and was hoping some who have gone through a similar process might share their experience...

Brief background: I have been shooting for about 5 years. My initial interest was birds, so for landscapes and other subjects I just got by with the kit lens. In time, I got more interested in landscapes, waterfalls, sunsets, etc. and replaced the kit lens with the Nikon 18-200 (original version). This has proved very versatile, but seems a little lack luster in image quality. So in short, I want to get more vibrant, punchy, contrasty, higher IQ landscape images. How do I achieve that without breaking the bank?

Full frame – I would prefer this route, but cannot justify the cost. It would require a body plus lenses and I can't see how to do that for less than $3000 (or even $2000 for used gear).

DX approach - I still love my D300s and I still shoot birds a lot, so just buying better lenses looks like the way to go... but which lenses? I tried a 50mm 1.8G. They let me take some test shots outside the store, which I then duplicated with my 18-200 set to 50mm and the difference was amazing. Sharper, less noise, richer colors, etc. By comparison the images from my 18-200 looked like I was shooting through haze.

I would consider going with primes, but what combination would make for a usable kit. I reviewed 50 or so of my favorite images and they range from 18mm to 120mm, with the majority in the 24-70 range (that’s from EXIF, not converted to FF figures). The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 would be great, but would take me a while to save for it. The 24-120 f4 gets good, but mixed reviews, and its f4 and not that much cheaper. The 35, 50, and 85mm primes are reasonable, but don’t cover the wide end. I could mix the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with primes, but the combined price is approaching the 24-70. What to do?

As you can see, I am bouncing all over looking for the best IQ at a reasonable price. For the sake of argument, let’s say I had a budget of $1200. What would you recommend? In your own photographic journey, what made the biggest improvement in your landscape photography (aside from skill)? Comments on zooms vs primes, and full frame vs crop bodies are all welcome. Even I could go full frame I will probably stick with Nikon because my 300mm f4 is a good birding lens, but if there are compelling reasons to consider Canon I would like to hear that too. For lenses, I would consider Nikon and third party lenses.

So for the long winded saga. Looking forward to your input.
 
I would continue to use the D300 and save for the 24-70mm. In the meantime, just keep shooting and working on composition and PP.
 
Have you thought about going with at D7100? I have seen some very nice landscapes shot with that body, and all your current lenses would be fine on it as it is a DX body. Then, save up for either the 24 70 2.8 or 14 120 f4 for later use on FF body. Dave
 
A new lens isn't going to help you. For landscape, there is simply no substitute for lots of pixels, preferably unfiltered. The D5300 with the new 18-140VR kit lens is an absolute no brainer at your budgetary limit. The removal of the AA filter (good riddance) is just the medicine needed to bring up fine detail and increase microcontrast.

Add the 40G Micro at your leisure for a dead sharp corner to corner flat field DX lens that you can use for single shots or panos very effectively, and you are done.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies so far. I know the D7100 and D5300 have more pixels and newer processors, but if I'm sticking with DX I'd rather put the money into lenses. In my mind (and feel free to comment/disagree) the investment in good glass will accomplish what I'm after and will outlive any camera body I may have. So aside from going full frame, I think "Good Glass" is the key - whether its FF or DX lenses.

As for the 16-85 + 70-300 idea... reviews on these lenses are mixed at best. They both have variable apertures and I'm just not sure they would be much of an upgrade. Basically, any lens worth considering would have to have IQ that is significantly better than the 18-200 that I already own.
 
You can do plenty with the D300s and 18-200mm as I have that combo as well as a bunch of glass including something that you may think about, a Tokina 12-24mm F4 lens (18-36mm in FF). It gives a wide perspective which is interesting. I would look at options in the WA range as my glass is maybe a decade old, but WA definitely adds a twist and you can get wider like a 10mm but I find 12mm is often wider than I use.

There are a lot of lenses on the market but when measure-bating I would not gush over many. Fast glass is cool, but big and expensive and I end up at f5.6-8 much of the time unless there is not enough light. The 24-70mm f2,8 is a very useful lens, but it is a boat anchor and pricy. The 18-200mm spends more time on my camera than any other lens as it is lightweight and very versatile. My most used bird/animal lens is the 300mm f4, another boat anchor but nice for a long lens and much lighter than the f2.8 version.

Most of my glass is FF even if I shoot the 300s. My next camera will be FF but I am not rushing. Actually my next camera will likely be a Nex6! Unfortunately not 100% there yet but good enough for most situations. I have a 4/3 camera which is great assuming the image is in focus (maybe 60% or less). When I want to focus on photos I use a DSLR.

--
RonFrank
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/index.html
Some of my Photos
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/photos.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76853294@N05/
 
Last edited:
NikonNature said:
I have a dilemma and was hoping some who have gone through a similar process might share their experience...

Brief background: I have been shooting for about 5 years. My initial interest was birds, so for landscapes and other subjects I just got by with the kit lens. In time, I got more interested in landscapes, waterfalls, sunsets, etc. and replaced the kit lens with the Nikon 18-200 (original version). This has proved very versatile, but seems a little lack luster in image quality. So in short, I want to get more vibrant, punchy, contrasty, higher IQ landscape images. How do I achieve that without breaking the bank?

Full frame – I would prefer this route, but cannot justify the cost. It would require a body plus lenses and I can't see how to do that for less than $3000 (or even $2000 for used gear).

DX approach - I still love my D300s and I still shoot birds a lot, so just buying better lenses looks like the way to go... but which lenses? I tried a 50mm 1.8G. They let me take some test shots outside the store, which I then duplicated with my 18-200 set to 50mm and the difference was amazing. Sharper, less noise, richer colors, etc. By comparison the images from my 18-200 looked like I was shooting through haze.

I would consider going with primes, but what combination would make for a usable kit. I reviewed 50 or so of my favorite images and they range from 18mm to 120mm, with the majority in the 24-70 range (that’s from EXIF, not converted to FF figures). The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 would be great, but would take me a while to save for it. The 24-120 f4 gets good, but mixed reviews, and its f4 and not that much cheaper. The 35, 50, and 85mm primes are reasonable, but don’t cover the wide end. I could mix the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with primes, but the combined price is approaching the 24-70. What to do?

As you can see, I am bouncing all over looking for the best IQ at a reasonable price. For the sake of argument, let’s say I had a budget of $1200. What would you recommend? In your own photographic journey, what made the biggest improvement in your landscape photography (aside from skill)? Comments on zooms vs primes, and full frame vs crop bodies are all welcome. Even I could go full frame I will probably stick with Nikon because my 300mm f4 is a good birding lens, but if there are compelling reasons to consider Canon I would like to hear that too. For lenses, I would consider Nikon and third party lenses.

So for the long winded saga. Looking forward to your input.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Dosss,

Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful comments. I think you read the situation accurately. I'm not itching to buy new gear, I just want to get the best landscape images I can. I'm happy with my D300s, but the 18-200 definitely has some weaknesses. In good conditions it does fine, but in certain other situations it shows its flaws (and trying the 50 1.8 really proved that). Perhaps a prime like the 35mm or 50mm 1.8 ($220) would allow me to do some head to head comparison without too much of an investment. And it would work on FX too, if I ever make that leap.

Your point about money for traveling is spot on too. I'd take a trip to Yellowstone over a new lens any day.

Thanks!
 
A very good but relatively inexpensive lens is the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5 FX lens which on a D300s provides a comparable FX range of 27-52mm focal length range. The majority of landscape images that get made into prints are in the 28-40mm range or in the 150mm and longer. Ultra wide angle lenses have their place but with landscapes there is greater need for precise lens alignment or one gets the common problem of a falloff in edge sharpness. The individual subjects in the landscape are also reduced in size with an ultra wide angle lens which is why stitching of images into a panorama produces a more powerful image.

A used 17-35mm f2.8 would be another good lens that works well for both DX and FX cameras.
 
NikonNature said:
The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 would be great, but would take me a while to save for it.
Click to expand...
I don't see a need for full frame 24-70 f/2.8 in nature photography. Too heavy (900g!) to hike with. I'd look for f/4 versions. Some DX 2.8 normal zooms aren't too bad. Maybe look at the 16-85 if you want to zoom.
 
NikonNature said:
...... So in short, I want to get more vibrant, punchy, contrasty, higher IQ landscape images. How do I achieve that without breaking the bank?....................
Click to expand...
So what kind of images are you talking about?

Are you referring to those little downsized files you post on flickr? Those images are equivalent to only a few tenths of a megapixel. You don't need a lot of fancy gear to generate that sort of image. The vibrancy, punch and contrast will be dependent on your initial capture and your post processing skills. Spend more time learning Photoshop. Spend more time shooting.

Are you referring to printed images? If so, what size prints are you making? You don't need a lot of expensive gear or a high megapixel camera or expensive lenses if you are printing at say 12x18 or smaller. If you print at 16x24 or 20x30 or larger, well maybe the gear starts to matter. Otherwise, again, the important factors will be your capture and your post processing. For prints, color management and your choice of paper can be important. If you are looking for high quality prints, you need to consider buying a high quality printer, a selection of paper and then spending time learning how to make high quality prints.
 
jrkliny said:
NikonNature said:
...... So in short, I want to get more vibrant, punchy, contrasty, higher IQ landscape images. How do I achieve that without breaking the bank?....................
Click to expand...
So what kind of images are you talking about?

Are you referring to those little downsized files you post on flickr? Those images are equivalent to only a few tenths of a megapixel. You don't need a lot of fancy gear to generate that sort of image. The vibrancy, punch and contrast will be dependent on your initial capture and your post processing skills. Spend more time learning Photoshop. Spend more time shooting.

Are you referring to printed images? If so, what size prints are you making? You don't need a lot of expensive gear or a high megapixel camera or expensive lenses if you are printing at say 12x18 or smaller. If you print at 16x24 or 20x30 or larger, well maybe the gear starts to matter. Otherwise, again, the important factors will be your capture and your post processing. For prints, color management and your choice of paper can be important. If you are looking for high quality prints, you need to consider buying a high quality printer, a selection of paper and then spending time learning how to make high quality prints.
Click to expand...
 
Relieve yourself from G.A.S. ;)

Makes little sense to switch your allegiance from Nikon to Canon, especially if you happy with results with Nikon.

But how about a long telezoom from Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina for your most photo interests? Not expensive and good quality. Something like the Big Ma or 200-500 zoom lens To add to arsenal.

You have some great gear, better to go out and take more pictures with what you have, and not get consumed by going with yet another camera system that you will have to learn.

Good luck.

And happy shooting.
 
Last edited:
I would go with the Nikon 7100 and a kit lens. I am a Canon shooter so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I would really like to have the extra resolution and wish Canon would wake up and start making a higher res camera. At least for Canon, the kit 18-55 and 55-250 lenses are excellent. At least the image quality is excellent plus light weight and easy to carry. Although the IQ is excellent these lenses have other limitations such as ruggedness, waterproofing and overall durability. They are certainly not going to hold up with daily professional use but they are perfectly suitable for amateurs on a budget. My advice assumes that the Nikon kit lenses are of similar quality.
 
jrkliny said:
I would go with the Nikon 7100 and a kit lens. I am a Canon shooter so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I would really like to have the extra resolution and wish Canon would wake up and start making a higher res camera. At least for Canon, the kit 18-55 and 55-250 lenses are excellent. At least the image quality is excellent plus light weight and easy to carry. Although the IQ is excellent these lenses have other limitations such as ruggedness, waterproofing and overall durability. They are certainly not going to hold up with daily professional use but they are perfectly suitable for amateurs on a budget. My advice assumes that the Nikon kit lenses are of similar quality.

--
Jim, aka camperjim
http://www.specialplacesphoto.com
Click to expand...
That's a good post, Jim. So many photographers think that getting a slightly more contrasty pro lens is going to get more landscape goodness, which it will, slightly. The difference in lenses is real, to be sure, but it is utterly swamped by the pixel count. The D5300 (OP's budget) is the same camera image quality wise as the D7100 if not better with possibly less banding. With either the good little 18-55 kit lens or the newer, better 18-140 it will smoke any 12MP camera for detail and microcontrast no matter the optic mounted on the older unit. Notice the microcontrast part. Without an AA filter, the fine details pop out better as we see with about every new AAless offering from everybody. It's a difference in bite most can see at any size 1920 long side or better without any eyestrain at all.

Coming soon to a desktop and/or living room wall near you, a 4K monitor with four times as many pixels as you are presently looking at. Future proof is good. If I had a ten dollar bill for every amazing scene I've shot at 6 or 8 MP back in the day that shows poorly now, I'd...

We all thought VGA showing four MP was excellent just a few short years ago. It wasn't, we just got used to looking at mushy detail and compensated.

Prints are fine with just about anything up to 8X10, but after that, the difference is obvious. Not the end of the world obvious, but definitely visible. There is not one landscape picture I've seen in anyone's gallery shot at 12 or 16 MP that wouldn't have been better if it had been taken by 24 or 36, and I definitely include my own D90/D7000 shots.

Not every landscape pic needs to be minutely detailed, so stipulated.

The Nikon 16-85VR is actually still the best all around consumer zoom you can mount on a DX camera for f8 landscape. Sharper than any camera, contrasty as you like, and 16 not 18 at the wide end. Here it is beating the excellent 40G Micro at its own game. It has produced many millions of razor sharp pics the world over. It can be had for about $450 used in good condition. The 35 1.8G is a terrible landscape lens, not having been designed for that purpose.
 
Interesting question and one which I am sure will receive a lot of varying opinions. Here is mine. To preface my comments, let me first give you some background on my current equipment, and my experience shooting landscapes.

I have both a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon D800. The former is used mostly for wildlife photography while the latter is my landscape camera. For the D7000, I have the Nikon 18-200mm VRII lens which came with the camera, plus a Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24 mm F4 zoom. For the D800 I have the new Sigma 35mm F1.4, a Nikon 105mm F2.8 Micro, and a Tokina AT-X 28-70 mm zoom in F2.8. I also have a Sigma 150-500mm lens, which I use on both cameras, for wildlife shots.

My main interest in photography is nature, and I spend about two-thirds of my time on landscapes and the other one-third on wildlife. Over the last 20+ years, I have photographed most of the National Parks out West, some several times. I also take landscape shots around Colorado, e.g. Crested Butte, Aspen, etc. If you are interested in seeing my work, let me know and I will give you the address for my website. You could also go to yourshot.nationalgeographic.com and look me up. I have about 135 photos posted there.

Now to respond to your question. First of all I favor primes over zooms because of the better bang for the buck. You get the best IQ without breaking the bank. The downside to this is the need to have and carry around multiple lenses. So, in my view, a good compromise is to have one really sharp prime in your most commonly used/favorite focal length with a decent zoom for those times the prime just doesn't cover the scene properly. For the type of landscapes I shoot, I find the 35mm focal length gives me enough wide angle without reducing features in the scene too much. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 I have is fairly expensive at $900 but well worth the cost. DXO Labs has it rated at the top of its list for IQ when used on a Nikon D800.

I do not like wide-angles below 24mm for several reasons. First, because the resulting image often has sections that are too small to be discerned. Also, because extreme wide-angles produce a lot more distortion, vignetting, CA, etc. When reviewing all of my favorite landscape photos, I found that the majority of them were taken in the 24-50 mm range, with a few at 70 or 105 mm.

I am currently thinking about selling the Tokina 28-70. While it is a very good lens, it does not have VR (or IS/OS for non-Nikon lenses) plus it is over 20 years old. I plan to replace it with a zoom in about the same focal range; will probably buy either the new Tamron 24-70 mm F2.8, or the even newer Sigma 24-105mm F4.

Since you want to stick to DX format, I think your choice of the new DX format Sigma 18-35 would be a good one. You could later supplement that with a prime in your favorite/most-used focal length at a later time. If you do choose to go the 24-70 route (which in DX terms if 36-105mm), I would suggest looking at the new Tamron 24-70mm that I am considering. It cost a lot less, but is rated higher (at least on my camera) than the Nikon version.

Sorry for being long-winded. Hope this helps.
 
If you are mostly shooting landscapes and don't mind manual focusing and checking focus on live view, you might consider the Samyang/ Bower/ Rokinon/ Pro-Optic set of lenses, which are cheap and high optical quality. The lenses range from USD 290.00 to 650.00, not counting the 24mm tilt/shift lens. Another option is to dig up some old AIS lenses from craigslist or fleabay or your closet. Old AI/AIS manual focus, manual aperture lenses may well take care of the 35mm and longer segment of your lens set. I am using a AIS 50mm f/1.2 and F to EF adapter on my Canon full frame. It makes a damn fine astrophotography lens at f/2.8 full frame, or f/2 if I don't mind moderate coma in the corners. It is really sharp in the f/2.8 to f/5.6 range. Don't bother if you aren't doing astro, you can get something cheaper.

Samyang 16mm or 24mm; legacy or new 35mm or 50mm; legacy or new 85mm

I am not versed in new AF Nikkors, but look at the slower ones, since you will be shooting stopped down anyway.
 
I appreciate all the input. It is very interesting to hear different perspectives and I have been given a lot of food for thought.

To jrkliny & Reilly Diefenbach, the higher MP without the AA filter is a very good point. You are probably correct that there would be a more noticeable improvement by getting one of the cameras you listed than in buying a new lens. However, I am one of those optimistic fools holding out for the mythical D400, since I still shoot birds more than 50% of the time. If that body is ever released, it will no doubt have the greater resolution and microcontrast that all the newer bodies seem to have. Until then, I think a well chosen lens is still a worthy upgrade that will pay dividends on my current body and any future body.

To Dogman Joe, "a lot of varying opinions" is right. But I respect everyone's viewpoint and am thankful for those who took the time to reply.

In your case, it sounds like your shooting interests are similar to mine, but with a bit more emphasis on landscapes - which is really what this post is about. So your "long-winded" response was more than welcome. I appreciate specific lenses mentioned, since you have hands on experience with them. I will take my time and research a variety of lens options including primes as you suggested. It also looks like there are some new lenses that haven't hit the streets yet, so maybe I will wait for some reviews on those.

Anyway, thanks again to all who replied.
 
I didn't read the other threads but I'd say get a couple of good lenses. I shoot Canon and on 7D crop 17-55 IS 2.8 is a great lens. I've had it for over 5 years on 3 different bodies. I also have the FF 6D and Canon 24-105 IS is a good lens. You may want to try 50 1.4 Sigma. Canon's 1.4 isn't as good as Sigma and Canon's 50 1.8 is a little slimsy. I prefer zooms to primes but not super zooms like 18-200.

Kent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top