wISOr Loc: Austin, TEXAS

SO sorry. You are correct and I was not paying attention f/4 is what it is. I just bought a 105mm Micro f/2.8 and I think I am still in a daze over it

:shock: :shock:

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

Right! I left off "at f11".

It doubles or halves for every two f-stops from f11.

Thanks.

bdo Loc: Colorado

No problem. The 105mm is another great lens, as you are no doubt discovering.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Sigma 10-20mm.

barkeypf Loc: Clifton Park, NY

I have a D80 and use the Tokina 11-16. Fantastic lens, just read the reviews. You can see results using this lens at http://Paul-barkevich.artistswebsite.com or http://www.redbubble.com/people/barkeypf
Paul

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Why in the world would he want a FF for a crop frame camera? His vew would be the like 42mm on the D80. The 18 to whatever kit lens will work great for landscapes if you stop down as you should with that kind of shot. I would look around for any of the wide angles with the lower lens length 11-12 mm. Will not need a fast lens for landscaps. This will give a lot diffeant prospective than the 18 on up. As for brand I have never talked to a photogrpaher that didn't like the ultra wide he had.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

If I were to go back to a DSLR, I would almost assuredly purchase an inexpensive camera with a smaller sensor and spend the majority of my money on good full frame lens(es). By doing so, I would avoid the image quality fall-off on the edges of some dx lenses, and I would have the lens(es) for a full frame system to which I would ultimately upgrade.

bdo Loc: Colorado

I've been thinking about landscape photography with a DX camera (Nikon D7000), and I've pretty much reached the conclusion that this is the one area where an FX has the edge, simply because of the crop factor.

Even the Tokina 11-16mm, on a DX body, has an angle of view equivalent to 16.5-24mm on an FX. While 16.5 (call it 17mm) is good, it's not as good, of course, as the 12-24mm on an FX.

And then there is the smaller image size, which can be a disadvantage when going for larger print sizes.

I'm still considering the Tokina 11-16 for my D7000, but I think I will be putting myself at somewhat of a disadvantage for landscape photography compared to an FX with a 12-24mm lens.

But I didn't get the D7000 for landscape photography. I guess if I were really serious about landscapes, I would go to at least a medium format.

And then the budget rears its ugly head...

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I don't think that FF does have the edge because of crop factor.
A 10mm is equivalent to 15mm on a Nikon which puts it wider than most of your FF options.

The 12-24mm is a Sigma and I am not sure it has the quality into the corners that your other options have.
If you mean the Nikon 14-24mm then that has other properties that also can make it less desirable. Weight, cost, ease of use with GND filters.
Both of these lenses have a bulbous front element as well.

How large do you really want to print them out?
I should imagine the D7000 will go to 30x20" quite easily if you have the proper shot technique.
And yes a medium format can be a great landscape camera but there are many instances and reasons why you would use a DSLR FF or APSC for this instead.

Wickspics Loc: Detroits Northwest Side. Cody High School.

The Tokina 11-16 2.8 love it.

Never leave home without it.