35mm, 50mm or 10-20/24mm
- Thread starter Iron lung
- Start date
Depends on what sort of Landscape you take. If it is a vast panorama, then the wider primes are what you need. For landscape you will need a lot of DOF, hence you should be shooting between F5.6 and F8. In that case getting "Fast" glass is point less, unless it has exceptional sharpness in the aperture range you want.
Ultra wides have a lot of distortion, and you are better off not using them. That leaves normal wides - 20, 24 or 28mm. I prefer 28mm. The 28mm F2.8 AIS manual focus lense is one of the sharpest Nikon lenses in the 20mm-35mm range. (note that the 28mm f2.8D is a completely different glass and not all that good).
The 35mm F1.8DX is a good lens, but on a DX sensor is a "normal" and not a wide lens.
Another option used by landscape photographers is to stich the panorama using 3 to 10 shots. If the sky is not changing much and there is little wind, then that is the way to go.
Ultra wides have a lot of distortion, and you are better off not using them. That leaves normal wides - 20, 24 or 28mm. I prefer 28mm. The 28mm F2.8 AIS manual focus lense is one of the sharpest Nikon lenses in the 20mm-35mm range. (note that the 28mm f2.8D is a completely different glass and not all that good).
The 35mm F1.8DX is a good lens, but on a DX sensor is a "normal" and not a wide lens.
Another option used by landscape photographers is to stich the panorama using 3 to 10 shots. If the sky is not changing much and there is little wind, then that is the way to go.
Respectfully, I didn't say I needed any of them. All I wanted to do was upgrade from the kit lens...I have been told that better glass is = better images. I have purchased the 35mm f1.8 I haven't had a chance to try it out yet but I will... after I read some of these sharpening tutorials.
Respectfully, I didn't say I needed any of them. All I wanted to do was upgrade from the kit lens...I have been told that better glass is = better images. I have purchased the 35mm f1.8 I haven't had a chance to try it out yet but I will... after I read some of these sharpening tutorials.
Congratulations, the 35 1.8 is a wonderful lens and also very versatile. But it's just a little wide for portraits on DX. So, eventually you'll want the 50 1.8 as well. And don't worry, we're all the same once the NAS (Nikon acquisition syndrome) gets ahold of us.
And I really know what it means.And you haven't bought anything new yet?
Yes! An essential bit of kit for landscapes! Which tripod did you get? They're not all the same.
As I just spent more than I should have on a camera, I've just gone for a Hama Star 63 as it was cheap and a friend of mine has one and suggested it was good for the money. I hope it'll be good enough for me starting out and I can always upgrade to something better in the future if need be.
Absolutely nothing wrong with UWA lens for landscapes IMO. I have a Sigma 10-20mm and use it nearly exclusively for landscapes/seascapes, so I do think you have been mis-informed by the poster who suggested otherwise.
Having said aid that the 35mm is a fantastic little lens and a great learning tool too. Good luck with it and enjoy.
Having said aid that the 35mm is a fantastic little lens and a great learning tool too. Good luck with it and enjoy.
Congrats.I myself have purchased the 35 and the 50 (both 1.8), and love them.But I've found that the kit lens takes some kick a** photos. I don't see anything wrong with them. I thought about ditching them, selling them back and upgrading, but i don't feel the need. I'm happy with both the 18-55 and the 55-200mm kit lenses and the 35 and 50mm 1.8's. I won't be purchasing anything else anytime soon.I'll post some shots i took with the kit lens later.
All shot with the 18-55mm kit lens.
First 2 Processed in LR.
Last is untouched.
All shot with the 18-55mm kit lens.
First 2 Processed in LR.
Last is untouched.
Last edited: