Hello everyone, first post on this group page. I am in the market to purchase a "recommended" landscape type lens. I currently shoot with a Nikon D500 and own a 16-80 f/1.8 lens as well as a 50mm f/1.8 prime. I am thinking of getting one of the wide angle lens such between 10mm and 24mm with 1.8 or 2.8 f stop. Then I se the wide angle zoom lens and wonder if maybe that is a better direction to go instead of one of the fixed prime lens. Any thoughts out there? Experienced input would be appreciated.
What are you shooting that your current 16-80 could be improved on? Are you looking for better image quality or a different perspective? Daytime or lowlight? How far are you having to walk with the gear? I shoot on a Canon so the lenses aren't exactly the same, but close enough. Almost everything I shoot is with a 15-35 f/2.8 (previously a 16-35 f/4) and the only time you really need wide apertures (unless you love shallow depth of field shots) is for astro shooting. Almost every picture is taken at f/8 so the super wide apertures are really not needed. Nikon has an awesome 14-24 lens, but the front element is huge and filters are expensive if you need them. It's hard to recommend something specific without knowing what kind of landscape images you want to take and what the shortcomings of your current setup are. A rule that I've always gone by is that you should develop your skills and only buy new equipment when you can outshoot your current kit. If that is the case, awesome. At that point you would know what aspect of your current setup is in need of an upgrade and why.
I would echo Peter Nestler's response, I do not know tons about the Nikon line, but a 16-80 sounds like a fine lens for a great deal of landscape situations.
I personally shoot Canon, and only carry two lenes - 14-35 f/4, 70-200 f/4 - I choose those two because they are light, compact and cover the vast majority of my landscape shots. I spend a great deal of time hiking in the mountains in very rugged terrain, so gear weight and size is a primary concern for me.
Your personal situation may be very different, if you generally don't have to carry gear long distances, you may make very different choices than I did.
Hi Randall! I agree with both Peters! I use Nikon "full frame" gear. I sometimes wish I had a wide angle zoom, but I use primes, 20, 28, 35, and 55 or 60mm (both macros) and an 80-400mm zoom out in the field usually. I use a modest 28-105 for social outings and the like, and may take my 20mm as well. I almost never want wider than 20mm, and this is my most rarely-used lens. Extreme wides can introduce too much distortion - trees leaning in if you point the camera upwards, spheres at the edges looking like ovals, etc.
My reasoning in arriving at my outfit was that wide-angle shots can usually be arranged & composed satisfactorily by moving the camera, whereas you can't change the size of a distant tree or mountain much by moving..The 80-400 is my most-used lens.
I note the popularity of much wider lenses, like the 14-24 Nikon or even wider lenses, but I very rarely "see" images needing this.
That's me - I obviously lean towards longer focal lengths generally. I didn't decide to - it's just what has become apparent through experience. I've thought that, say the 16-35 would more than replace three primes with more flexibility and probably weigh less. But I like my old MF primes, and stick with them. The primes-plus-zoom kit above weighs about 10kg in the back pack with a few filters, etc. I wouldn't hike a long way with that! This is before considering tripods.
I have other lenses I've accumulated over three decades, but the above are my workhorses, and landscape is my main genre.
Just another person's preferences and practice. I think if you don't know what you want, keep your money until there's something you can't do with the gear you've got. That's my philosopy with other things, like tools - I buy what I need for a task, and can afford.