Lens help - Landscape preferred

[motor mouth]

Hi!

First post on the Camel, but have read a fair amount and seen a lot of great pics.

I am looking for a new lens to supplement my pathetic selection. I currently have a D70 and a Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 DX VR. I have noticed I do not get the sharpness I seek with this lens. It's great for the kids and dragging around when I want to go light, but I think it's time to up the glass quality.

I am seeking a lens for landscapes. I live in Oregon, so without too much effort I can shoot high desert, mountains, coast and anything in between. I have read too much and probably confused myself, but one thing that has stuck in my mind is primes. Read someplace that they tend to be sharper. True? Maybe at one time? Currently?

I have been looking at the (all Nikon's) 16mm 2.8, 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8 and the 14-24MM 2.8. Issue I have witht the 14-24 is the cost. The cost and the lack of filter options.

I mentioned the D70, but I am thinking (perhaps erroneously) that I want to get non-DX lenses going forward. I would really like to move to the FX bodies once the D700 has been around a while to work out any kinks and do not want to have to rebuy a bunch of lenses. Is the FX lenses really as big a waste on the D70 as Ken Rockewll would have me believe?

Any thouhgts? Other lenses that are sharp?

Thanks in advnace for any help. I look forward to being able to post some pics in the Landscape thread that everyone could enjoy.

[spector426]

I love my sigma 10-20 mm. Great for landscapes and priced right. around 500 dollars.
Rich

[ulrauko]

I think you are right about primes. the tend to give much better pics, than zooms. if you are looking to FX camera - consider 35/2 - it's a killer lens and wide enough. i think mr Ken is too boisterous sometimes

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by spector426

I love my sigma 10-20 mm. Great for landscapes and priced right. around 500 dollars.
Rich

Are you able to post some pics taken from this lens? I want to make a well rounded lens selection myself. And as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Or a picture is worth a thousand reviews

[Jeff Perry]

Motor Mouth, I'll assume you were really taking about the Nikon 14mm 2.8 as opposed to the 16mm which is a Fisheye.

The 14mm prime will cost you almost as much coin as the 14-24. I have the latter and have been exceptionaly pleased with it, mounting it to both DX and FX format bodies. On the DX it plays like a 21-36, still not that bad when talking about WA coverage.

If you mount one of the other 20mm or 24mm Nikon's you mentioned to your D70 you are really creeping up closer to standard focal lengths and not getting all the benefit of the wide angle coverage offered by the same lens mounted on an FX format body (that I understand you may gravitate toward someday).

I personaly would recommend the widest FX format lens you can afford (even if it is the 20mm prime), since it will give you fair-to-good coverage on a DX body and really shine when you get your grips on a D700 someday. You'll be glad you did.

Again, personally, having both DX andf FX format bodies, I will think long and hard before I invest any more "ka-ching" in a DX lens. Mounting my 17-55 DX onto the D3 and losing the angle of veiw AND only getting 5mp images was an embarisment, and caused me to track down a new 17-35 in order to get the angle of view (of a 17mm focal length) back and my full frame image to boot.

My guess is the potential for D90 with a DX sensor, if it is released with one, may be the last DX sensor-based body Nikon produces. In fact, I predict that it may even have an FX sensor if the D700 is successful at the $3K price-point. Think of a $1500 FX D90/900, a killer piece of hardware that will spell the demise of the DX sensors.

Save up and get the 14-24mm. Also, don't sell good third party manufactures short. They produce some very nice glass for the money.

Jeff

[badpickev]

great landscape lenses are the nikon 28 f2.8 35 f2 and sigma 28 f1.8 or the 24 f1.8

that 35 f2 is a killer. to equalt it on a crop camera look at the sigma 24 f1.8

[motor mouth]

Thanks everyone!

I think the issue is settled as far as getting something non-DX. Time to go kick a few tires and settle on a prime.

[Nikonfreak]

If I may add... the 14-24 is absolutely outstanding.

When I went to the D3, I ended up swapping the 12-24 for the 14-24 f/2.8. I was amazed and really surprised at how good it is and how little distortion it has. Filter use aside, hands down an equivalent offering to a prime and about the same price as one of the top end wide primes.

Julio

[Douglas]

Hefty pricetag, but I guess you get what you pay for.

[motor mouth]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Hefty pricetag, but I guess you get what you pay for.

So true. Everyone I have talked to locally that has used it thinks it's the best thing. Ever.

Someday.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by motor mouth

So true. Everyone I have talked to locally that has used it thinks it's the best thing. Ever.

Someday.

Thats exactly what I say too.

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by spector426

I love my sigma 10-20 mm. Great for landscapes and priced right. around 500 dollars.
Rich

I agree, for the price its a super lens if used with care...
Here's a pic taken with it at 10mm hand held....