Landscape and Travel Photography Lens


Status
Not open for further replies.
espn said:
AF-S 17-35 f/2.8

Don't bother considering anything else ;p

espn,
why 17-35 over the 17-55? 17-55 is in DX format and wouldnt it be better with the Dslr?
 

rebbot said:
Ironically I did not use that range much when I was there :sweatsm:
I only needed it once, but that's good enough reason to bring it liao :thumbsup:
 

fweddy said:
espn,
why 17-35 over the 17-55? 17-55 is in DX format and wouldnt it be better with the Dslr?
DX format or not, it has nothing to do with DX being superior or not.

17-35 is still an amazing performer as compared to the 17-55 with that additional 20mm reach which isn't really a lot to me.

I'm more concerned on the glass performance as a whole, sharpness @ wide open (ie: f/2.8) across the zoom range and the consistent performance of the 17-35 which makes it well loved, especially when stepped down beyond f/5.6 it performs exceptionally well.

Colours, saturation and sharpness is very well controlled on the glass as well, it makes the glass a perfect design as compared to the 17-55, which was constructed to simulate the 28-70 on the DX format.
 

is weight an issue? I usually travel light so at most bring 2 lenses. Right now, I usually bring along ultrawide (10-22 for me, nikon 12-24 or 3rd parties for u) and a 18-125. Sometimes, I add on a fast lens like 20/1.8 or 35/2 for low light shots without flash or tripod.
 

mpenza said:
is weight an issue? I usually travel light so at most bring 2 lenses. Right now, I usually bring along ultrawide (10-22 for me, nikon 12-24 or 3rd parties for u) and a 18-125. Sometimes, I add on a fast lens like 20/1.8 or 35/2 for low light shots without flash or tripod.
Normally, for walk around in SG, I'd prefer a 50mm f/1.8, for travelling IF I can afford these some day....

AF-S 17-35 f/2.8
AF-S 28-70 f/2.8

and bring them go travelling :lovegrin:
 

mpenza said:
is weight an issue? I usually travel light so at most bring 2 lenses. Right now, I usually bring along ultrawide (10-22 for me, nikon 12-24 or 3rd parties for u) and a 18-125. Sometimes, I add on a fast lens like 20/1.8 or 35/2 for low light shots without flash or tripod.

yeah i kinda wanna bring an ultrawide zoom along too and a normal one. telephoto highly unlikely, maybe my 85 prime too.thanks mpenza!
 

lol espn, i thought u are the buying king. ive seen around this forum hahaha

That aside, so the 17-35'sa much better buy than the 17-55? yeah i tink ive read the ED class is much better and aperture consistency is better too. i dont see why the 28-70?? for that price i'd much rather get a 14mm f2.8? btw, advice me on a price for the 14mm f2.8, 17-35 and
12-24?

Thanks bro
 

fweddy said:
i was thinking of getting 12-24 BUT, i read quite a bit of stuff on it and the lens doesnt seem to perform that well? pictures not being up to standards?

Hi Fweddy

There have been discussion about 12-24mm DX lense on earlier thread and have been debate till death.

Just to share with you, 12-24mm DX lense is not only an excellent Landscape Lense, it is also useful in
outdoor street photograhpy in tight, crowded and narrow areas.

Photo taken with D70s/12-24mm DX last weekend. (Pardon the dust in image)

4.jpg


An focal length comparison, in case you need to know.

12mmcopy.jpg
 

Photo taken with D2H/17-55mm DX.:bheart:

DHO_0188.jpg


Is the image real enough ?

4.jpg
 

fweddy,

If you are more ineterested in landscape for your trip, Nikon 12-24 is an excellent lens.
It is sharp, excellent contrast, good color and best of all image field is truly flat. Excellent wide angle coverage.
This is important if you have building in your composition. Plenty in Europe.

18-200 VR barrel distortion very serious at wider end. Some say VR is good for low light. But my opinion, take photo when there is good light.

Nikon 17-55 is also good as an addition incase you might want a longer reach. But really hard to find a good copy of this lens. Anyway you already have 18-70 so you don't really need 17-55.

Well above comments basis I assume your are using digital SLR.

Have a nice trip.

Regards,
 

Photo taken with D2H/10.5mm Fsheye in 1st Klose Outing.

2.jpg


Photo taken inside KLCC.

KL14.jpg
 

fweddy,

If you are more ineterested in landscape for your trip, Nikon 12-24 is an excellent lens.
It is sharp, excellent contrast, good color and best of all, image field is truly flat. Good wide angle coverage.
This is important if you have buildings in your composition. Plenty in Europe.

18-200 VR barrel distortion very serious at wider end. Some say VR is good for low light. But my opinion, take photo when there is good light.

Nikon 17-55 is also good as an addition in case you might want a longer reach. But really hard to find a good copy of this lens. Anyway you already have 18-70 so you don't really need 17-55.

Well above comments basis I assume your are using digital SLR.

Have a nice trip.

Regards,
 

You have to determine how much weight you wanna carry. You present lens is more than enough to produce good images.. :)

Since you already have the 18-70, take a look at those favorite pics of yours.. At which focal length is it normally at?

If you find youself using 18mm more of the time, 12-24mm will be a good investment.

If you find using 70mm most of the time, either stick to the 18-70 or buy a 17-55mm.

Remember not to let weight tire you out during the trip and no mood to take pics..
 

If I have to bring only one lens, my choice is AFS 17-35mm f/2.8D. Many times I found that I do not need the extra mm for zooming, just get closer. This has been my work horse for travelling with family and for street shooting. This lens will work well with digital or film/slide. If you already have 18-70mm or 18-55mm lens, they will be ok too. I have never tried the 18-200mm lens, but in the past my 24-85mm lens did the job for most of my travel photography while shooting slides.

Enjoy your travel
Rgds
 

fweddy said:
lol espn, i thought u are the buying king. ive seen around this forum hahaha

That aside, so the 17-35'sa much better buy than the 17-55? yeah i tink ive read the ED class is much better and aperture consistency is better too. i dont see why the 28-70?? for that price i'd much rather get a 14mm f2.8? btw, advice me on a price for the 14mm f2.8, 17-35 and
12-24?

Thanks bro

I would feel the 17-35's more worthwhile over the 17-55. Both contains ED glasses actually.
 

espn said:
I would feel the 17-35's more worthwhile over the 17-55. Both contains ED glasses actually.
!agreed! nv regret bringing 17-35 to 2 overseas trip... rewards with very gd pictures :thumbsup:!!!
 

ok thanks all! so i would say, 17-35f2.8 is the best choice.

as for a wide angle, i would also like to bring one along. Any few u guys would like to recommend? 14mm? 12-24?or others?
 

fweddy said:
ok thanks all! so i would say, 17-35f2.8 is the best choice.

as for a wide angle, i would also like to bring one along. Any few u guys would like to recommend? 14mm? 12-24?or others?
17-35 is a wide angle ;p
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top