Nikon DX / FX lenses for travel & landscapes

darkcloud154 · Jan 20, 2014

So Im going to a trip in July to New York for a few days, and then off to South America, visiting Peru, Bolivia and Chile.

I own a Nikon D7000 DX camera, using a 18-105 lens as a daily driver. I had for months wanted to buy a 24-70 f2.8 lens as my go to lens. But having read reviews on the internet, it seems most commentators say the 24-70 is not best suited to a DX body, and its often not listed on the top 5 lenses for the D7000 or D/X bodies.

So that has put me in a dilemma. I mainly shoot landscapes, but I also would like to shoot portraits too on my trip as well as standard travel shots etc.

So been thinking of ditching the 24-70 and buying a prime 35mm DX and perhaps a 10-24mm wide angle, which would be great in NY and also for the wide landscapes in South America. The 35mm would be good for landscapes too. Anything in between I would use my 18-105. The other thought I had was to buy the wide angle and the 24-70 and use the focal length on the 24-70mm as a prime lens replacement and a little more. What about the 50mm Nikon does, or is the 35mm better suited?

Another angle was to hire the lens, though the cost of the 35mm is the same as buying it outright, so renting it for 3 weeks doesnt make sense, but for the 10-24 and the 24-70 it does, as it works out 5 times less than buying it.

I dont think I will be buying an F/X body for a good few years, if ever at all, and thus would be sticking with a D/X setup for the short to medium term. Hence Im leaning towards the D/X lens.

I would love to get opinions on which would be best for landscapes / travelling / portraits. Happy to take a few lenses on holiday as long as I get the shots and also the best lenses for my DX setup.

CaptainNapalm · Jan 20, 2014

I wouldn't count on the 24-70 f/2.8 to do you just justice on these trips. From my experience shooting cityscapes and landscapes, the 24mm on a DX body would be too limiting not wide enough. I think a wide angle like you mention (or the Nikkor 12-24 DX wide angle which I have and it's awesome) would be a good investment. You can always resell these lenses when no longer needed. A fast 35mm prime would also be a good investment for shooting in low light.

oldhippy · Jan 20, 2014

Had some really good shots with the 16-85 Nikon . Something to look at. Ed

darkcloud154 · Jan 20, 2014

@captainnapalmThanks for your response. Would you recommend the 35mm prime or should i go for the 50mm? I'm just concerned that the focal length will be bigger - 75mm on a 50mm?? What are your thoughts?

@oldhippy. I know the 16-85 is better than the 18-105mm kit lens, but i don't feel the cost is justified to upgrade to that. I have also read some say the 18-105 can be as sharp as the 16-85. What are your thoughts on this lens. I read the VR is much better.

RichieT · Jan 20, 2014

You could look at the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS also. This lens is tack sharp. It became my main walking around lens on my D300.

oldhippy · Jan 20, 2014

430.00 used, an inside and outside 16-85 w d5100 and novice experience .

Amazon.com: Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

jaomul · Jan 20, 2014

If 18mm is wide enough I would just bring a small fast prime such as the 35 you mentioned. I find when I travel changing lenses is to troublesome. This is where a reasonable 1 lens option shines.

Braineack · Jan 20, 2014

oldhippy said:
430.00 used, an inside and outside 16-85 w d5100 and novice experience .

for around $300 you could use the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS. I bought one specifically for a vacation trip.

Usul · Jan 20, 2014

I vote for Sigma 17-50. I think you won't find better lens in terms of IQ and versatility. It has few drawbacks though such watersealing and moving focus ring.

SwampDude · Jan 20, 2014

I've only taken a few photos with my new Nikon 10-24mm lens, but I believe it will allow me to take landscape and tight city/town shots that will be remarkable. The field of view at 10mm is astounding. Will the results justify the $840 price? I think so.

yioties · Jan 20, 2014

The Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD is a good choice as well. This is the non VC version which is cheaper and the reviews say it has better image quality.

CaptainNapalm · Jan 20, 2014

darkcloud154 said:
@captainnapalmThanks for your response. Would you recommend the 35mm prime or should i go for the 50mm? I'm just concerned that the focal length will be bigger - 75mm on a 50mm?? What are your thoughts? @oldhippy. I know the 16-85 is better than the 18-105mm kit lens, but i don't feel the cost is justified to upgrade to that. I have also read some say the 18-105 can be as sharp as the 16-85. What are your thoughts on this lens. I read the VR is much better.

Which is better of the 35 vs 50mm will depend on your particular shooting style. Your d7000 already has a built in focus motor. I'd look at the older versions of the 50mm nikkor 1.8 prime lens. I got mine new for 130$ and so far this lens is my best lens optically. Good bang for the buck. The 35mm will be a bit more versatile but the bokeh not as nice in my opinion

VigilanteFoto · Jan 20, 2014

Are you headed to Machu Pichu in Peru? If so, go wide (10mm). When i went, i was then shooting with a D7000 and my widest was a 24-70 f 2.8'Tamron. It was a go to lens on that camera, but really was not wide enuf for MP. My pix are not bad, but those with Dx at 10mm are better. I have a leg handicap, so getting to the guard shack point where all of the major photos are taken, was a big thing for me (elevation climb with uneven stairs) and carrying a second lens was just not in the cards. Of all the places i visited in SA, the 24-70 was perfect except for MP. I took also my 70-200 VR as well as a fast 35mm and regretted none, except in MP. I also go to NYC alot and the 24-70 was a perfect lens.

bc_steve · Jan 25, 2014

CaptainNapalm said:
darkcloud154 said:

@captainnapalmThanks for your response. Would you recommend the 35mm prime or should i go for the 50mm? I'm just concerned that the focal length will be bigger - 75mm on a 50mm?? What are your thoughts? @oldhippy. I know the 16-85 is better than the 18-105mm kit lens, but i don't feel the cost is justified to upgrade to that. I have also read some say the 18-105 can be as sharp as the 16-85. What are your thoughts on this lens. I read the VR is much better.

Click to expand...

Which is better of the 35 vs 50mm will depend on your particular shooting style. Your d7000 already has a built in focus motor. I'd look at the older versions of the 50mm nikkor 1.8 prime lens. I got mine new for 130$ and so far this lens is my best lens optically. Good bang for the buck. The 35mm will be a bit more versatile but the bokeh not as nice in my opinion

If I were doing it all over again I would get the 50mm G lens instead of the D. At the wider apertures the higher contrast areas just don't look very good to me. I think the G lens handles this better ...

I agree with you above, 24mm will not be wide enough for the OP's widest focal length.