Lens for general photography, arch, landscapes

[SpecialForces101]

hey guys, I am getting the Nikon D700 and I have been looking at some lenses. I mainly take pictures of landscape, buildings, city by night. I was wondering if this lens below would be good for my needs? My budge is $2,000...I was thinking of getting this lens below and then another one for portrait photos.

So will this lens be good for what I need it for?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m.html#reviews

I visit a lot of construction sites and take pictures of construction (sky scrapers). If anyone can recommend a good portrait lens I would appreciate it. Thank you

[Shadowman]

You can probably find a cheaper lens with an f/3.5 aperture but not a designated as a wide angle. If you have the chance try the lens before buying so that you are not surprised by the distortions (vignetting in corners, lines that bow outward, and color fringes)that are known with wide angle lenses.

hey guys, I am getting the Nikon D700 and I have been looking at some lenses. I mainly take pictures of landscape, buildings, city by night. I was wondering if this lens below would be good for my needs? My budge is $2,000...I was thinking of getting this lens below and then another one for portrait photos.

So will this lens be good for what I need it for?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m.html#reviews

I visit a lot of construction sites and take pictures of construction (sky scrapers). If anyone can recommend a good portrait lens I would appreciate it. Thank you

[Jeremy Esland]

That 24-70 is a) a great piece of quality glass and b) a great portrait lens. What you may find though, is that it isn't wide enough for your intended uses. I'd pair that with the new 16-35 VR lens (http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/...F4G-ED-VR.html). The 16-35VR has only just been annopuced so you may have to wait for availability. The 17-35 f/2.8 id a good substitute.

As a measure, approximately 18mm gives you a 90 degree horizontal field of view. This is significant in tight interior shots, for example, enabling you to get into the corner of a room and effectively capture "all of it". The overlap between the two lenses would be beneficial, in the sense that you'd be swapping lenses less! The 14-24 is also a great piece of glass, but I'm thinking that the VR on the 16-35 would be great for your "city by night" requirement and 14 really is "crazy wide".

An alternative would be to get the 16-35 and a 70-200, skipping the 35-70 band altogether. Many photographers, myself included, just don't seem to miss that range. (If I was out shopping today, that's the combo I'd get.)

Of course you could be a "good Nikon customer" and get the three lenses they really WANT every D700 customer to buy: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. Heavy and pricey as a combo, though.

If budget limits you, try the 16(17)-35 and an 85 f/1.8 (for portraits). Then you could add 24-70 and/or 70-200 later.

[Colin Southern]

Another "angle" to consider (pun intended) is a Tilt & Shift lens ... pretty much the ultimate for architecture. Canon have 4 in their lineup, but not sure what Nikon have to offer (I only mention this because you might like to go the Canon way instead, if Nikon don't have anything equivalent).

Definately something to check out anyway.

Hope this helps,

[SpecialForces101]

Thanks for the replies guys,

I was thinking maybe I can get a extra wide angle lens for landscape and city shots.


Perhaps getting this one (Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...specifications

And then as a general use lens get the one I posted originally in my first post.

What do you guys think?

[Smuggy]

I have the 14 - 24. Fantastic lens, but an ultra-wide isn't a good general lens. Same for the the 24 -70 mid-range. I think you're best answer is a combination of lenses. Try this: Fixed: 50mm 1.4, and the 80 to 200 2.8. The nifty fifty will work for general use. Cost ~$500 new. The 80 - 200 is a fantastic lens, heavy, razor sharp, and can create great bokah. Believe it or not, I use it as a portrait. The 80 to 200 is ~$1200 new and ~$900 used. Here: http://www.keh.com/Search-Products/1...de/0/0/SE.aspx

Hope this helps.

[SpecialForces101]

I have the 14 - 24. Fantastic lens, but an ultra-wide isn't a good general lens. Same for the the 24 -70 mid-range. I think you're best answer is a combination of lenses. Try this: Fixed: 50mm 1.4, and the 80 to 200 2.8. The nifty fifty will work for general use. Cost ~$500 new. The 80 - 200 is a fantastic lens, heavy, razor sharp, and can create great bokah. Believe it or not, I use it as a portrait. The 80 to 200 is ~$1200 new and ~$900 used. Here: http://www.keh.com/Search-Products/1...de/0/0/SE.aspx

Hope this helps.

Well I wouldn't use the 14-24mm for general use, that I would only use for city landscape shots, or panorama photos. The 24-70mm I would use for in city photos, and everyday photos of trips, vacations, etc.

[Colin Southern]

Well I wouldn't use the 14-24mm for general use, that I would only use for city landscape shots, or panorama photos. The 24-70mm I would use for in city photos, and everyday photos of trips, vacations, etc.

Possibly the best solution (if possible) is to have a play with some of these focal lengths and see which is going to suit the types of shots that you want to take. Personally (in the Canon world) my suggestion is to (eventually) acquire the EF16-35/F2.8L, EF24-70/F2.8L, and EF70-200/F2.8L as a starting "trilogy" of lenses. I use all three - with the keyword there being USE.

[Blazing fire]

Another "angle" to consider (pun intended) is a Tilt & Shift lens ... pretty much the ultimate for architecture. Canon have 4 in their lineup, but not sure what Nikon have to offer (I only mention this because you might like to go the Canon way instead, if Nikon don't have anything equivalent).

Definately something to check out anyway.

Hope this helps,

If this is what you're shooting "I mainly take pictures of landscape, buildings, city by night", then the tilt shift lens is an obvious choice. Also get a good tripod for HDR bracketing, panorama and long exposure shots.

Take a look at this and this. Kenrockwell (please don't flame) in addition to the author of luminous landscape did an excellent writeup on the uses of tilt-shift lens. They clearly demonstrates why such a lens is essential for your needs.

@Colin, nikon's lens lineup is undoubtedly inferior to Canon's. I admit that even though I'm a "nikonian". Thankfully, it does offer several t/s lens. The 24mm seems to fit his needs. Just note that it might hit the top of the D700 so you can't shift it all the way up.

Edit- from bythom.com (thom hogan) "

• Landscape shooter. The clear choice is the 24mm PC-E. It is sharp edge to edge even on a D3x (non-shifted), plus gives you the ability to control DOF more. You don't need fast apertures or AF, and the lens has filter rings. Slam dunk. Honorable mention: 16-35mm f/4G, 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D, and 24-70mm f/2.8G."

[Dave Humphries]

Take a look at this and this. Kenrockwell (please don't flame) in addition to the author of luminous landscape did an excellent writeup on the uses of tilt-shift lens. They clearly demonstrates why such a lens is essential for your needs.

I wonder who you mean? (Dave whistles innocently)

No, seriously, this is the opposite extreme; an excellent article by Ken, especially great for beginners that don't know what these lenses are and how the can 'bend and shuffle' the lens relative to the sensor.

Darn it, now I want one

Cheers,

[GiantTristan]

The Nikon 24-70 is avery nice lens. However, for landscape and architecture I prefer the Nikon 14-24. For night photography I supplement this with the manual Zeiss ZF 2.0/35 lens. Since you are interested in a portrait lens, you might want to have a look at the Zeiss ZF 2.0/100.