dionysis wrote:
I went for a 17-35, 28 1.8(for stars), 50mm 1.8, and a 70-300mm. While the 70-300 is not as sharp as the 70-200 that I recently sold it weighs about 1/4 as much. That in itself makes a huge difference for landscapes. 14-24 is AWESOME! but the 17-35 isn't much worse and it takes filters.
The size and weight of the camera / lens combo is not a major concern as I do not backpack and seldom go more than a mile from the car... 99% of my shots are off a tripod... At this point in my photo- life I am looking for the best IQ... I will look into the 17-35 as suggested... Thank you...
OP, since you DID say landscapes, in my mind with zero doubt you have listed the holy trinity for Nikon zooms! It is hard to beat those three for any kind of landscape work!! In addition, if you are exempt from shooting wildlife, I would be hard pressed to name a more capable holy trinity from Nikon for most any type of photography. When you have from 14mm to 200mm covered with the quality of these lenses, I am pretty sure you can get some decent shots of a lot of things including landscape, portraits, weddings, court sports, street photography, and the list could go on. Sure, I would like to see a new 24-70 someday, but I have seen some beautiful landscape work done with that old dog just as it is. My advice is grab you some form of the Nikon 800 and fill your bag with the three you mention and go shooting. IMHO you will be very happy!!!
Greg
VarsityMonthly wrote:
If it were me I would lean toward less is more. Would pick 17-35 f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S vII. Then ad a 50mm f1.8 AF-S G for low light.
This seems to be a very popular setup... I will definitely look into it... Thank you...
thedruid wrote:
This is what I use mostly 17-35mm AFS, 24-70 or 24-120VR, 70-300VR...but I shoot more than landscape and carry my gear on my back.
No backpacks for this old man... Short walks from the car, with my tripod mounted setup... Your gear sounds reasonable... I will check it out... Thank you...
mm767cap wrote:
Just my opinion... But if you are going to get the D800e, get the BEST lenses you can afford, as there is no point getting all that extra resolution and then tossing it away with the lens. I recently switched from Canon, and now have the 14-24 and the 24-70. The only one I've paused on buying is the 70-200 II. Reason being is strictly budget, and as a landscape only kind of guy, the 14-24 is mounted 95% of the time anyway.
My consideration is with getting a new 80-200 f2.8. From the research I've done, it's a very sharp lens. The AF improvements and VR are lost on me, as I'm only using it for landscapes. It's over $1000 cheaper than the 70-200 II. If I had extra money to burn, it would be an easy decision of getting the 70-200 to round out my kit.
I used Canon for several years and had the 16-35, 24-105, and 70-200. The only thing I might have changed up was the 14-24 with a converter for the 16-35 since it is wider and sharper. However, the 16-35 sunstar kept me coming back.
I did look at the Zeiss 15mm prime, but at that $$ level, I just couldn't justify it. From what I can tell, the Nikon zooms are good enough to make them more than adequate over trying to carry enough primes to cover the range between 14-200.
...Show more →
Thank you... The information is appreciated... I have my home up for sale and will be spending the next year or two traveling in an RV... I will have the money for whatever I decide upon but not enough to be frivolous... Thank you again, Jim
rxgolf wrote:
OP, since you DID say landscapes, in my mind with zero doubt you have listed the holy trinity for Nikon zooms! It is hard to beat those three for any kind of landscape work!! In addition, if you are exempt from shooting wildlife, I would be hard pressed to name a more capable holy trinity from Nikon for most any type of photography. When you have from 14mm to 200mm covered with the quality of these lenses, I am pretty sure you can get some decent shots of a lot of things including landscape, portraits, weddings, court sports, street photography, and the list could go on. Sure, I would like to see a new 24-70 someday, but I have seen some beautiful landscape work done with that old dog just as it is. My advice is grab you some form of the Nikon 800 and fill your bag with the three you mention and go shooting. IMHO you will be very happy!!!
Greg...Show more →
Thank you Greg... I will have the money soon so I have to decide... What makes matters worse is my wife has already said I can jump ship (Canon to Nikon) but she is keeping my gear for herself... Jim
I'm also an older walk around landscape shooter. My choices vary some from the others. First, it's always good to have AF - there's always a picture of the grandkids to be taken. Second, I find weight important. I'm in reasonably good shape, but the lighter the kit, the more I'll carry. Finally, as a landscape shooter, I'm usually stopped down to f8 or less. At those apertures, much of the difference between the very best and the merely very good disappears. I'm using Nikon's new 24-85 VR lens as my go-to lens and thus far I'm very happy. It's relatively lightweight, and produces excellent sharpness, color and contrast stopped down. If I were setting up today, I'd be looking at the 16-35 f4, and the 24-85 as my basic kit.
SethD wrote:
I'm also an older walk around landscape shooter. My choices vary some from the others. First, it's always good to have AF - there's always a picture of the grandkids to be taken. Second, I find weight important. I'm in reasonably good shape, but the lighter the kit, the more I'll carry. Finally, as a landscape shooter, I'm usually stopped down to f8 or less. At those apertures, much of the difference between the very best and the merely very good disappears. I'm using Nikon's new 24-85 VR lens as my go-to lens and thus far I'm very happy. It's relatively lightweight, and produces excellent sharpness, color and contrast stopped down. If I were setting up today, I'd be looking at the 16-35 f4, and the 24-85 as my basic kit....Show more →
Since it is a landscape question, my standard gear I'll go out with is the D800e, remote release, tripod & ballhead, the trinity you list (14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm) BUT also, the trinity of pc-e lenses: 24mm, 45mm, 85mm. I won't hike 10 miles with all this crap, but try and be selective if there is a remote destination. But usually I have that in my Jeep. It all fits in my Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 aw pack.
In order of what I use, I almost always start with the 24mm pc-e, then 45mm pc-e, and then mix and match. the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm come in last usually. Based on reviews (I take with a grain of salt) the pc-e series may not be perfect on the D800e, but they make up for it by eliminating perspective issues and simplify panos. And, I just like screwing with them, they make it sort of fun. But, I also always use live view for landscapes, which can get a little irritating on the D800e LCD, butt overall works adequately.
So, if I had to pick three and leave others behind it's a tough call, but right now I'd probably take the three prime pc-e lenses. The real downside to that is if I see animals...
These three are the holy trinity zooms.
I choose for another set up; 16-35VR, 24-120VRII and 70-200 VRII.
16-35VR because of the versatility and the possibility to use a 'normal' set of filters (77mm).
24-120VRII because of the versatility and the weight.
Landscape is not my main/first priority.
Although the 28, 50 and 85 1.8's are pretty good value for money I find them too limited for my use/liking (not wide enough, not long enough).
Aug 04, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
oldrattler wrote:
Andy, I am sorry my inquiry came across to you as one concerned about what other know / believe... It is a legitimate question, which you answered with a question, so what do you think I should be concerned with... Global warming, decline of the Rufus Beatles, What??
1) The name is Andre, not Andy
2) No need for you to be snide ... my post was not rude ... your reply was rude.
3) I answered with a question because by knowing your specific needs/ wants, I and many others will be better able to advise you.
4) I think you should be concerned with YOUR NEEDS and start the conversation from there rather than a pre-selected list of gear.
So I ask again, what are your specific needs and wants? From there a list of recomended gear can be advised.
ckcarr wrote:
Since it is a landscape question, my standard gear I'll go out with is the D800e, remote release, tripod & ballhead, the trinity you list (14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm) BUT also, the trinity of pc-e lenses: 24mm, 45mm, 85mm. I won't hike 10 miles with all this crap, but try and be selective if there is a remote destination. But usually I have that in my Jeep. It all fits in my Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 aw pack.
In order of what I use, I almost always start with the 24mm pc-e, then 45mm pc-e, and then mix and match. the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm come in last usually. Based on reviews (I take with a grain of salt) the pc-e series may not be perfect on the D800e, but they make up for it by eliminating perspective issues and simplify panos. And, I just like screwing with them, they make it sort of fun. But, I also always use live view for landscapes, which can get a little irritating on the D800e LCD, butt overall works adequately.
So, if I had to pick three and leave others behind it's a tough call, but right now I'd probably take the three prime pc-e lenses. The real downside to that is if I see animals...
That's my 2 cents worth, which is all it is......Show more →
Thank you... I have never tried a PC-e lens so that could be interesting...
Chris Dees wrote:
These three are the holy trinity zooms.
I choose for another set up; 16-35VR, 24-120VRII and 70-200 VRII.
16-35VR because of the versatility and the possibility to use a 'normal' set of filters (77mm).
24-120VRII because of the versatility and the weight.
Landscape is not my main/first priority.
Although the 28, 50 and 85 1.8's are pretty good value for money I find them too limited for my use/liking (not wide enough, not long enough).
Thank you Chris... The 16-35, 24-120, & 70-200 have all been previously mentioned as possible lateral substitutions... I will check them out... Again, Thank you
Andre Labonte wrote:
1) The name is Andre, not Andy
2) No need for you to be snide ... my post was not rude ... your reply was rude.
3) I answered with a question because by knowing your specific needs/ wants, I and many others will be better able to advise you.
4) I think you should be concerned with YOUR NEEDS and start the conversation from there rather than a pre-selected list of gear.
So I ask again, what are your specific needs and wants? From there a list of recomended gear can be advised.
Cheers,
Andre
1) I apologize for getting your name incorrect...
2) I openly admit to being snide, and somewhat pretentious... But I never said you were rude... What I said was there was an "implicate condescension" ... As in talking down to another...
3) Had you read my initial post more carefully you would noted I ask a simple question, Is this the Holy Trinity of landscape photography?? If it is not, what is?? Since I ask a specific question regarding landscape photography I felt my intent / purpose had been identified... Simply put, why would I ask about "Landscape" lens for studio work??
4) As I was asking a specific question regarding a triune configuration I felt listing the lens was a precursor to receiving an answer... Had I ask "what 3 lens you recommend for landscape I would have still felt my intent had been expressed... but I would not have listed lens... Different question dictate different grammatical structure...
5) You have been around here a long time, possibly, maybe, could it be you have expectations of questions based on previous post and sometime inject things into a post not called for?? Just asking if you initial statement was needed to answer my question...
Thank you for the input, Jim
Aug 04, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
oldrattler wrote:
1) I apologize for getting your name incorrect...
2) I openly admit to being snide, and somewhat pretentious... But I never said you were rude... What I said was there was an "implicate condescension" ... As in talking down to another...
3) Had you read my initial post more carefully you would noted I ask a simple question, Is this the Holy Trinity of landscape photography?? If it is not, what is?? Since I ask a specific question regarding landscape photography I felt my intent / purpose had been identified... Simply put, why would I ask about "Landscape" lens for studio work??
4) As I was asking a specific question regarding a triune configuration I felt listing the lens was a precursor to receiving an answer... Had I ask "what 3 lens you recommend for landscape I would have still felt my intent had been expressed... but I would not have listed lens... Different question dictate different grammatical structure...
5) You have been around here a long time, possibly, maybe, could it be you have expectations of questions based on previous post and sometime inject things into a post not called for?? Just asking if you initial statement was needed to answer my question...
Thank you for the input, Jim...Show more →
1) Thank you
2) an "implicate condescension" ... you would be incorrect in that. Certainly not my intent
3) I did read it carefully ... it is a non-sensical question as there is no magic set of 3 lenese for landscape photographers ... I would not perscrive to any such notion for any type of photography. I base all my reconmendations on a person's specified needs and wants. "Landscape photography" is a broad field and leaves much to interpretation. I've see landscape shots done with fish-eyes and with 600mm lenses along with everything in between. For me, the ideal "landscape" kit would be a 10-24 DX, a 24PC, a 17-55 a 70-200 and a 300 f/2.8 ... hey, that's 5 lenses, not 3!!!!
4) You are a patronizing a--, aren't you? Purely retorical question.
5) You would be mistaken again.
6) You never did answer my question, so I won't answer yours ... you seem to know everything anyway.
Honestly I was trying to help with my initial post and extend an olive branch in addition to wanting to help with my second post.
