Thinking about a wide-angle Landscape lens...

[JonA_CT]

I'm taking a road trip this summer, and I'll be camping and spending a lot of time in Shenandoah NP, Great Smoky Mountains NP, and Rocky Mountain NP (with lots of stops in between). While I'm not normally a landscape photographer, I'm thinking I may kick myself if I'm not prepared for the trip and miss shots I want to take.

My primary camera is a D600, and the only lens I have is the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. While for a majority of the photography I'm interested in, a longer zoom makes more sense, and that was my planned next purchase, I'm wondering if I should invest in a wider prime or zoom. I guess my question is whether it's worth it or not -- will I be disappointed with not having something wider? My budget for this lens would probably be around $300 used, which doesn't seem to leave a lot of options anyways. I could rent a lens, but I'll be gone for 30 plus days...

I also have a Sony NEX-5n that I'm more likely to carry hiking -- but I'm not sure I want to spend any money on a lens for that.

Thoughts? Any older legacy glass, even if it's MF, that might work for this purpose?

 

[nerwin]

Nikon's 20mm 2.8D and 18-35D are the two lenses that come to mind around that price point. You MIGHT be able to find a Tokina 17-35 f/4 around that price too.

These are all used prices by the way.

 

[astroNikon]

I use an 18-35 AF-D lens on my D600. It's compact and light compared to the modern version, and in your budget limit. You can check my sig and look at all (or most) of the car shows, church photos, etc (except sports) which were taken with that lens. It is an older lens, designed in the film days but it seems pretty sharp on my camera. It does suffer from distortion in that the edges tend to angle in from bottom to top dependent upon perspective. That can be corrected in PP. Can't complain compared to the price of the more recent lens which is 2x the price.

 

[nerwin]

I use an 18-35 AF-D lens on my D600. It's compact and light compared to the modern version, and in your budget limit. You can check my sig and look at all (or most) of the car shows, church photos, etc (except sports) which were taken with that lens. It is an older lens, designed in the film days but it seems pretty sharp on my camera. It does suffer from distortion in that the edges tend to angle in from bottom to top dependent upon perspective. That can be corrected in PP. Can't complain compared to the price of the more recent lens which is 2x the price.

I'll probably just get the 18-35D myself, I've seen it at a decent price on eBay before.

What's the sweet spot of the lens? On my tokina 12-24 f/4 it was 5.6.

 

[astroNikon]

I really don't know it's sweet spot but I would guess f/8.

Being a f/3.5-4.5 lens I used a lot of up close shots - with the car shows. And depending upon your DOF requirements I would use the appropriate aperture depending upon how I wanted the shot to look. I love certain distortion so my distance to subject and specific aperture was my main concern. So I was less worried on the "sweet" spot unlike on my 150-600 where I'm always at f/8 the sweet spot for detail on far away objects for that lens.

 

[astroNikon]

to the OP
the 18-35 AF-D is a AF-D lens which requires a focus motor in your d600 to AutoFocus.
It won't AF with a d3x00 or d5x00 series camera body. But it should be just fine on the d600 (and d7x00 DX, d7x0, d8x0, etc) as that's what I use too. I also used it on my d7000 camera with no issues.

 

[nerwin]

I really don't know it's sweet spot but I would guess f/8.

Being a f/3.5-4.5 lens I used a lot of up close shots - with the car shows. And depending upon your DOF requirements I would use the appropriate aperture depending upon how I wanted the shot to look. I love certain distortion so my distance to subject and specific aperture was my main concern. So I was less worried on the "sweet" spot unlike on my 150-600 where I'm always at f/8 the sweet spot for detail on far away objects for that lens.

I'm debating what I want to do, haha. I have a big car show coming up in June..like 5,000 cars and I'm wondering if I should get a ultra wide like I used last time or just use my 24-120 f/4 to able to zoom in and isolate certain details.

I haven't had the opportunity to shoot car shows yet with my 24-120 f/4 because I just got it not too long ago and its not car show season here yet, so I can't really say.

Its a tough decision. I mean 24mm is still relativity wide on full frame.

Took this with it.

 

[astroNikon]

My other primary lens is the 24-85/2.8-4.0.

With car shows though I love the perspective distortion with the 18mm as you can see on your photo with the front end being so bold. When there's more curves it becomes more fun. So I found the 18 being much better. Plus, being closer, you don't get people walking in front of you all the time as there's no room. For some reason ppl move back for a few seconds as it's obvious you are taking some photo being up close. Many of my car show shots are minimally cropped.

I think it's minimum focus distance is under a foot though the article states 1.1 ft. There are plenty of shots where I was up close but getting the entire front, windshield, etc of the car. ppl though I was taking photos of the emblems. The 18 is so nice I've thought of trying 17 or 16mm lenses.

here's a good review detailing it's shortcomings ==> Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D Review

 

[nerwin]

My other primary lens is the 24-85/2.8-4.0.

With car shows though I love the perspective distortion with the 18mm as you can see on your photo with the front end being so bold. When there's more curves it becomes more fun. So I found the 18 being much better. Plus, being closer, you don't get people walking in front of you all the time as there's no room. For some reason ppl move back for a few seconds as it's obvious you are taking some photo being up close. Many of my car show shots are minimally cropped.

I think it's minimum focus distance is under a foot though the article states 1.1 ft. There are plenty of shots where I was up close but getting the entire front, windshield, etc of the car. ppl though I was taking photos of the emblems. The 18 is so nice I've thought of trying 17 or 16mm lenses.

here's a good review detailing it's shortcomings ==> Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D Review

I'm pretty sure I've read that article before when researching that lens.

My best car photos were taken with my ultra wide angle when shooting with the D7000. I guess it always sense to get another one just for shooting car shows and landscapes but dang, I just love the versatility of my 24-120 f/4. If it was a 16-120 f/4, then it would be killer! Haha.

 

[JonA_CT]

Thanks for the help! It doesn't seem like any of the normal good used outlets have any -- any thoughts on this ebay one?

Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF IF ED Lens

I'm a bit nervous to buy on eBay, but the price is good...

 

[astroNikon]

Thanks for the help! It doesn't seem like any of the normal good used outlets have any -- any thoughts on this ebay one?

Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF IF ED Lens

I'm a bit nervous to buy on eBay, but the price is good...

That shows signs of a lot of use. The focusing ring rubber is loose, a lot of wear. etc. Spend a little more and get one in more pristine shape if you have the $$$.

 

[shadowlands]

I second the Nikon AF 20mm 2.8D at that price range.

 

[kalgra]

The Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for Nikon is right at $300 new. Its really wide but is sharp and an excellent choice for trying out some nice nighttime astro shots as well. Just a thought. Its an all manual lens but Nikon version at least has focus confirmation which really helps.

However is may have a bit too much barrel distortion for your tastes. Its not as bad on a crop sensor if you have an adaptor for your Sony NEX5. Anyway just tossing out some additional ideas for you.

 

[Bushy]

I really don't know it's sweet spot but I would guess f/8.

Being a f/3.5-4.5 lens I used a lot of up close shots - with the car shows. And depending upon your DOF requirements I would use the appropriate aperture depending upon how I wanted the shot to look. I love certain distortion so my distance to subject and specific aperture was my main concern. So I was less worried on the "sweet" spot unlike on my 150-600 where I'm always at f/8 the sweet spot for detail on far away objects for that lens.

I'm debating what I want to do, haha. I have a big car show coming up in June..like 5,000 cars and I'm wondering if I should get a ultra wide like I used last time or just use my 24-120 f/4 to able to zoom in and isolate certain details.

I haven't had the opportunity to shoot car shows yet with my 24-120 f/4 because I just got it not too long ago and its not car show season here yet, so I can't really say.

Its a tough decision. I mean 24mm is still relativity wide on full frame.

Took this with it.

View attachment 120752

 

[Bushy]

Hi Nerwin,
what camera did you hang that lens on please, or has it been photo shopped,
I have a Nikon D7200 and looking for decent lenses.
Thanks
Bushy