Hi,
I've mostly been a urban photographer up to now, but coming to Switzerland offers a whole new range of opportunities in terms of nature, and in particular landscape, photography.
I am currently equipped in APS-C (Nikon D300s + Tokina 11-16/2.8 + Nikon 17-55/2.8 + Nikon 70-200/2.8) but am intending switching to full-frame (only keeping the 70-200), unless the long-awaited D400 finally appears and fulfills its promises...
Budget-wise, aside from the D800 I intend to get, I would probably have budget left for just one lens. As suggested, it would be used mostly for landscapes (mostly on tripod), as well as for architecture in villages. My technique is not stong enough to consider a tilt and shift yet, unfortunately.
So my question to DSLR photographers out there is: based on your experience of Swiss landscapes, which lens would make most sense to go along the 70-200: Nikon 14-24/2.8: issue of the lack of filter thread though, and small range Nikon 16-35/4: range a tad weird, maybe, plus less versatile for indoor/night shooting Nikon Tokina 16-28/2.8: same filter issue, and range a bit small 24-70/2.8: getting a bit old (no VR), and wide end may be a bit too long for landscapes
I'm leaning towards the 16-35 but would love to hear comments on experience.
Cheers
If I was you I would be tempted to go for a prime wide angle lens instead. You may find that down at 16mm you will get too much distortion so don't use that end of the range if you go the first 3 lenses. I would also go for a lens that can take filters, you can get some really cracking landscape results using ND Grads but at the very least you would want a UV filter on your lens.
You can keep using your Tokina 11-16/2.8 on a full frame. The lens will not vignette on its long end (15-16mm). My experience with UW angle is that I usually use it only at the widest settings.
24-70mm you'll need anyway, unless of course you go all primes (24+35+50+85) which I would recommend if you do landscape, so have the time to switch lenses. :-)
I would go for the 16-35 for landscaping too. Although I have met a lot of photographers that use the 14-24.
I had primes in mind as well, but I'm not too aware of what each of them is worth (except for the truly spectacular Nikon 24/1.4, but I still need both my kidneys ). Of course, there is the Samyang 24/1.4, but it's an all-manual lens (plus seems there are some QC issues as per the reviews).
I'll check how the Tokina and the 17-55 behave on a full-frame (the latter apparently also avoids vignetting in the 26-55 range).
I don't shoot wide angle very often, so I'm not really familiar with the Nikon primes that are available at the wide end of the range, but my gut would tell me that you should be able to find a used prime with automatic exposure but manual focus for a reasonable price.
For landscapes, manual focus is no big deal -- you're always focused at infinity, right? And it's not as if the landscape is a fast-moving target.
Maybe something like the Nikon 20mm f/3.5, which takes standard 52mm filters and has auto metering? You should be able to pick up a good example for a couple hundred francs, which leaves some money to add something else to the toy chest...
Here is some light reading for you: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html
(Now you've given me a case of lens lust. Must take my hand off my wallet... I don't need any more toys...)
You have pretty good lenses already.
The Tokina should serve you well for a landscape photography.
Why not use the money for more trips within Switzerland.
Edit: Have you considered a prime like 50mm/f1.4 or any that can stopped down to f1.4?
Can suggest the Sigma 12-24mm if you plan to get a FX camera
I have the 8-16mm version for APS-C. Its slow but for landscapes it should not matter. The 120° FoV can be startling, and a lot of fun!
Full frame? Then 50mm; the same lens that's perfect for everything else as well.
The 20/3.5 is an excellent lens which, as you say, can be picked up pretty cheaply.
Here's a pic taken with it (Nikon F3 and Kodachrome 200):
Thanks for all these additional suggestions.
Regarding the MF-lens issue, I wouldn't mind if it were only for landscape, but I also shoot a lot of indoors architecture (in particular churches), which is why both a fast and AF lens would work better. Sigma 12-24 has a nice range, but would be way too slow at the low end for indoor shooting (eagerly awaiting the FX equivalent of the recently announced and very reasonably priced Sigma 18-35/1.8, here...).
Depending on the prices of second-hand 20/3.5, maybe I'll get one when I go on landscape-only shooting expeditions, so as not to have to lug around a heavy zoom (or fast prime).
A 50 prime would probably be too wide for landscape (and even more so for indoor shooting), though I may get one (either the 1.4 or the new 1.8G; I had to cheap 1.8D on the APS-C for some time but found I did not use it too much as it acted as a not-so-useful 75 focal) in case I go for the 16-35, so as to somehow bridge the gap between 35 and 70, in particular for street photography.
If you want a fast lens, then a prime will always be better than a zoom (in terms of cost, weight and quality). For street photography, the 50mm is perfect - particularly if you want to do candid portraits with ultra-thin DOF. I did most of my street stuff (check my site if you're interested) with a 50/1.0 (Leica Noctilux) held open or at 1.4 almost all the time - even in daylight.
I'm an amateur and mostly into landscapes. Usually find my 10-20mm sigma enough.. or a 18-105 as a walk around lens. I think nikkor 12-24 for your full frame body would be great.
I don't agree with the suggestion of using a fast lens for landscapes. In daylight you typically get enough light to get the lens to its sweet-spot f8 and at night for doing those long exposure shots one typically uses a tripod.
I have nearly all my work on my website (link below), using sigma 10-20
www.farhan-tauheed.com
I second that. I've found that a fixed prime at 17mm works quite nice here. Also second that a fast lens is not so handy either. Most of my favorite shots have been f/8 and smaller. Sometimes I use my 50mm fixed prime, but there needs to be little haze for that to be compelling. Some NDs, a polarizer and UV filter are also handy.
Sorry, I was probably not clear enough. The fact that I am in priority considering an AF and fast lens is due to a search of versatility, i.e. I'd like to be able to use this landscape lens also for shots where AF and/or aperture are key (hence the indoor churches example). No worries, I am fully aware that one does not shoot landscapes at 1.4
Some wonderful shots on your site by the way, Fahran! Is that the 3.5 or the 4-5.6 version?
Generally I would set focus in front of infinity. Bear in mind that the sharpest point of any lens is likely to be from 5.6 to 8 stop down to 16 & you will loose definition due to defraction.
The Nikon 20mm f 3.5 is OK, nothing special, a very old design. The 24 f 2.8 is way better. It's very difficult to build a fast wide full frame lens, which is why some wide angles are breath takingly expensive.