Reading mode: Light Dark

Sharp, lightweight landscape lens ~24mm (for DX)?

Go to last post
V

viveoistrach

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I'm at a point where I'm convinced that my copy of the Nikkor 18-55mm VR has seen its best times (I dropped it once and ran around with the camera a couple of times) - its softness on the edges even at f8 especially from 24mm - 55mm is outrageous (though the very center is still sharp). I could put pictures up if needed (e.g. a mountain range at the same distance just starts to become very blurry when moving towards the edge, even at f8).

So I'm in for a new lens for my hiking and backpacking trips besides the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 that I own. For the record, I have a D5100. The things I care about:
  • Consistent sharpness from center to edge (at f5.6 onwards is fine), I hate corner softness
  • 24 mm should be the sweet spot, could also do a 24mm prime if it's lightweight, I just realized this is the main focal length I shoot at for landscapes of different kinds
  • Lightweight: Overall I want to be able to especially cover the range 24-35 (18-35 would also be fine, also wouldn't mind 50mm but is not priority) with my lenses with a total lens weight of <1 kg, preferred is <600 g
  • budget shouldn't be too much above 700$ (used is also fine)
Things I do not care too much about if it saves me weight:
  • I don't need f1.8, f2.8 would be more than enough, I could even live with f3.5
  • don't need a zoom lens could do with three prime lenses. But if theres a very good zoom lens which is heavier and could replace my primes 35mm and 50mm for landscape pics, I'm fine with that too.
  • don't need macro
Basically the 18-55mm would have been a fine lens for all these purposes if it were still as sharp as people claim it is, but my copy is just not (anymore) and I'm ready to cash in a bit to go beyond a kit zoom lens if it gives me better sharpness in the pictures. Now I've looked at several models which went into the direction:
  • Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (sharp but heavy - don't need f1.8)
  • Nikkor 16-85mm (don't need the range)
  • Tokina 12-24mm (24 doesn't seem to be the sweet spot there and I don't need ultrawide)
  • Sigma 17-50mm
  • Tamron 17-50mm (not as sharp?)
Can anyone help me out in terms of choice or have other suggestions for my purposes? Is there a cheap and light ~24mm prime similar to the 35 and 50mm? Somehow I couldn't find anything in that direction but that also kind of makes sense.

I feel like the sharpness of the Sigma 18-35mm is extraordinary and most appealing to me, and it feels like I could get this and compliment it with my 50mm to have a nice choice of focal lengths. But it's slightly on the heavy and expensive side and I really don't need the f1.8. So I was going to look for others but I found their sharpness is generally slightly worse.

I'd appreciate if people have new suggestions I haven't thought of or read about. I've read many many websites and posts but people all have slightly different preferences so I'd be really happy if you could share your experiences.

Thanks and sorry for the long post,

viveoistrach
 
Last edited:
The Tokina 12-24 was my first thought, to be honest. It's really different from your other lenses and I personally have a thing for the super wide.

Although I guess you could cope with the 16-85. It's light and very versatile, sharp too. 16mm comes in handy for landscapes, it's actually a classic landscape focal length (24mm on ff). And short tele is nice for when you want to make a more compressed landscape.
 
Which version of the 18-55 do you have? The latest one (VR II) is in a different class from the earlier ones. I'm amazed at how good it is for the price.
 
viveoistrach said:
Hi all,

I'm at a point where I'm convinced that my copy of the Nikkor 18-55mm VR has seen its best times (I dropped it once and ran around with the camera a couple of times) - its softness on the edges even at f8 especially from 24mm - 55mm is outrageous (though the very center is still sharp). I could put pictures up if needed (e.g. a mountain range at the same distance just starts to become very blurry when moving towards the edge, even at f8).

So I'm in for a new lens for my hiking and backpacking trips besides the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 that I own. For the record, I have a D5100. The things I care about:
  • Consistent sharpness from center to edge (at f5.6 onwards is fine), I hate corner softness
  • 24 mm should be the sweet spot, could also do a 24mm prime if it's lightweight, I just realized this is the main focal length I shoot at for landscapes of different kinds
  • Lightweight: Overall I want to be able to especially cover the range 24-35 (18-35 would also be fine, also wouldn't mind 50mm but is not priority) with my lenses with a total lens weight of <1 kg, preferred is <600 g
  • budget shouldn't be too much above 700$ (used is also fine)
Things I do not care too much about if it saves me weight:
  • I don't need f1.8, f2.8 would be more than enough, I could even live with f3.5
  • don't need a zoom lens could do with three prime lenses. But if theres a very good zoom lens which is heavier and could replace my primes 35mm and 50mm for landscape pics, I'm fine with that too.
  • don't need macro
Basically the 18-55mm would have been a fine lens for all these purposes if it were still as sharp as people claim it is, but my copy is just not (anymore) and I'm ready to cash in a bit to go beyond a kit zoom lens if it gives me better sharpness in the pictures. Now I've looked at several models which went into the direction:
  • Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (sharp but heavy - don't need f1.8)
  • Nikkor 16-85mm (don't need the range)
  • Tokina 12-24mm (24 doesn't seem to be the sweet spot there and I don't need ultrawide)
  • Sigma 17-50mm
  • Tamron 17-50mm (not as sharp?)
Can anyone help me out in terms of choice or have other suggestions for my purposes? Is there a cheap and light ~24mm prime similar to the 35 and 50mm? Somehow I couldn't find anything in that direction but that also kind of makes sense.

I feel like the sharpness of the Sigma 18-35mm is extraordinary and most appealing to me, and it feels like I could get this and compliment it with my 50mm to have a nice choice of focal lengths. But it's slightly on the heavy and expensive side and I really don't need the f1.8. So I was going to look for others but I found their sharpness is generally slightly worse.

I'd appreciate if people have new suggestions I haven't thought of or read about. I've read many many websites and posts but people all have slightly different preferences so I'd be really happy if you could share your experiences.

Thanks and sorry for the long post,

viveoistrach
Click to expand...
Nikon 16-85mm.

You don't need the entire range? So what? Don't use it. That doesn't make it any less suited for meeting your criteria. It's not big and heavy, it's sharp corner to corner at f8, and it produces its best images from 24-50mm. Since the new 16-80mm came out, the price of the 16-85mm has fallen a bit. You can find used copies in great shape on Ebay for $300-$400, which is well within your budget.

--
http://www.naturecratephoto.com
 
Last edited:
viveoistrach said:
Hi all,

I'm at a point where I'm convinced that my copy of the Nikkor 18-55mm VR has seen its best times (I dropped it once and ran around with the camera a couple of times) - its softness on the edges even at f8 especially from 24mm - 55mm is outrageous (though the very center is still sharp). I could put pictures up if needed (e.g. a mountain range at the same distance just starts to become very blurry when moving towards the edge, even at f8).

So I'm in for a new lens for my hiking and backpacking trips besides the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 that I own. For the record, I have a D5100. The things I care about:
  • Consistent sharpness from center to edge (at f5.6 onwards is fine), I hate corner softness
  • 24 mm should be the sweet spot, could also do a 24mm prime if it's lightweight, I just realized this is the main focal length I shoot at for landscapes of different kinds
  • Lightweight: Overall I want to be able to especially cover the range 24-35 (18-35 would also be fine, also wouldn't mind 50mm but is not priority) with my lenses with a total lens weight of <1 kg, preferred is <600 g
  • budget shouldn't be too much above 700$ (used is also fine)
Things I do not care too much about if it saves me weight:
  • I don't need f1.8, f2.8 would be more than enough, I could even live with f3.5
  • don't need a zoom lens could do with three prime lenses. But if theres a very good zoom lens which is heavier and could replace my primes 35mm and 50mm for landscape pics, I'm fine with that too.
  • don't need macro
Basically the 18-55mm would have been a fine lens for all these purposes if it were still as sharp as people claim it is, but my copy is just not (anymore) and I'm ready to cash in a bit to go beyond a kit zoom lens if it gives me better sharpness in the pictures. Now I've looked at several models which went into the direction:
  • Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (sharp but heavy - don't need f1.8)
  • Nikkor 16-85mm (don't need the range)
  • Tokina 12-24mm (24 doesn't seem to be the sweet spot there and I don't need ultrawide)
  • Sigma 17-50mm
  • Tamron 17-50mm (not as sharp?)
Can anyone help me out in terms of choice or have other suggestions for my purposes? Is there a cheap and light ~24mm prime similar to the 35 and 50mm? Somehow I couldn't find anything in that direction but that also kind of makes sense.
Click to expand...
If your 18-55mm is no longer as sharp as it once was, replacing it with another would be a very inexpensive solution. Problem is, it was never a particularly good lens as noted in Thom Hogan's review.
viveoistrach said:
Thom's Mini Review: While Nikon is still bundling this as the kit lens with the low-end consumer DX DSLRs, they really need to refresh this lens a bit, as 24mp is really pushing the weaknesses of the lens into visibility. Considering that the implied cost of the lens is only US$100, it's probably still a bargain, and worth having around as an emergency backup, but on the 16mp and 24mp DX cameras I'd tend to recommend that you look at getting a better mid-range zoom.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/le...ikon-dx-lenses/nikkor-18-55mm-f35-56g-vr.html

.

The good news is that there's a newer version that's substantially better :
viveoistrach said:
  • Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II (product number 2211). Surprised to see a kit lens in the list? The very latest of Nikon’s kit lenses is a real bargain. I don’t know that I’d spend the US$250 to get one outside of the kit over other options, but at the implied US$100 price within kits, you can’t really go wrong. This lens is remarkably well-behaved, and about the best crop sensor kit lens I’ve come across, in any mount. It does the 24mp sensors justice, and if you’re shooting JPEG, the in-camera lens corrections take care of the few little problems that remain. Quite a remarkable feat, actually, considering the price and how many of these lenses Nikon produces. The build quality, however, is quite consumer. This isn’t a lens that will endure abuse.
...
Click to expand...
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html

.

There's more good news. Several dealers have been selling refurbished versions for $100 or less. Nikon's store has the refurbished version for $129.96. Amazon has it in a kit with several accessories for $89.95 (+ $10 shipping). Cameta often has comparable kits but at the moment their web site appears to be down. You might even find a new one pulled from a kit for about the same price. If you can afford it, I agree with jj1983, the old 16-85mm is a much nicer lens and it's available used for not much more than a new 18-55mm VR II.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B00KSL00II

https://www.lensauthority.com/products/nikon-16-85mm-f-3-5-5-6g-vr?gclid=CNmS3-ep3csCFYFahgodI1QIAw
 
Last edited:
Sigma 17-70 mm f/2.8-4 Contemporary
 
Good idea. New versions are out very recently. I don't follow DX at the moment or I'd be looking myself
 
Two great choices, the new 18-55 VR II or the 16-85.
 
The Nikon 16-85 ha been recommended by a couple of posters here. I'll second this reommendation. This is my backpackng lens -- it is light and very sharp. But you should also consider the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Thom Hogan in his review of the (expensive) Nikon 16-80 declared the 16-80 the best midrange zoom available for DX with the Sigma ($419 new at B&H) a close second. I also own the Sigma and it is exceedingly sharp and the f/2.8 with stabilization makes it very versatile.
 
Mahoonse said:
The Nikon 16-85 ha been recommended by a couple of posters here. I'll second this reommendation. This is my backpackng lens -- it is light and very sharp. But you should also consider the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Thom Hogan in his review of the (expensive) Nikon 16-80 declared the 16-80 the best midrange zoom available for DX with the Sigma ($419 new at B&H) a close second. I also own the Sigma and it is exceedingly sharp and the f/2.8 with stabilization makes it very versatile.
Click to expand...
Another vote for the wonderful Sigma 17-50mm. I am very happy with mine and the cost is great. Very close second and roughly 1/3 the cost. Win win for sure. Grey cost for the Sigma is $300 or just a bit over. A really great budget lens.

Mike
 
viveoistrach said:
. . . I'm in for a new lens for my hiking and backpacking trips besides the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 that I own. For the record, I have a D5100. . . .
  • Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (sharp but heavy - don't need f1.8)
  • Nikkor 16-85mm (don't need the range)
  • Tokina 12-24mm (24 doesn't seem to be the sweet spot there and I don't need ultrawide)
  • Sigma 17-50mm
  • Tamron 17-50mm (not as sharp?)
Click to expand...
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM.

This is my one DX lens for streets and hiking/backpacking trips. Sharp wide-open from 20 through 45. Both ends sharp when stopped down to f/4. Awesome for landscapes @ 17 @ f/8-11. Bonus: Bokeh is quite pleasing. Extra bonus: Great value.

(I also use Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM when I want to go really wide for dramatic effects. This one does not fit your needs as stated.)
 
Last edited:
I think you answered your question by yourself: the Sigma 17-50. I previously bought the 24mm f2.8D because its 35mm equivalent FOV was what I used the most back in the film days. But I seldom used this lens because of the lack VR and then because of the lack AF with my later motor-less bodies (I originally bought the lens to pair it with a D7100) and I finally sold it. The Sigma costs about the same gray market as a used 24mm f2.8D, has got optical stabilization and AFs with motor-less bodies like your D5100. It is also pretty sharp from what I've read about it, being nicest at 5.6. Were it not for reports that it no longer works with the newest FW for the D3300 I would have bought one already, but your D5100 is not affected. Me I'm waiting for Sigma to "contemporize" this lens so the USB dock works on it and FW can be updated as needed.
 
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