Tikva Loc: Waukesha, WI

I have a Nikon D500 and I'm wondering what would be the best lens for this camera when I want to take Landscapes. I didn't get the camera with landscape photography in mind, but every so often I want to be able to use it for that purpose. I currently have 3 lenses for the camera, a NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G, a NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8G and a NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G. I don't want to buy an FX lens because they are too heavy and I have no intentions of upgrading to a FF camera. The DX lenses are lighter as well as less expensive. I prefer to use a NIKKOR lens. Thanks in advance.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Well, this does not meet your Nikkor preference, but I also would prefer Nikkor, all things being equal, but I ended up buying a Tokina 11-16 and never regretted it. YMMV, of course!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I've been using the Tokina 12-24 F4 and like it,but for the amount of use I most likely won't add on to go wider. Prices are good.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

I realize these lenses are FX, but they are light and easy to use. Check into a 35mm prime and a 50mm prime. Both are great landscape lenses and make great portrait lenses as well.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

If you're looking for an inexpensive but good DX lens, may I suggest the Nikkor 35mm 1.8G DX as an alternative. You have this range covered, but this is a nice, lightweight excellent optic. I've been using one on my D500 for basketball with good results. For landscape I would prefer something wider and I usually use my Nikkor 20mm 2.8D but that is more expensive and not a DX lens. There is a wide variety of lenses available to you for this purpose, Nikon and others, at a wide variety of prices and weights. I suggest you widen your horizon on this. Best of luck.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

The popular $200 Nikon 35mm 1.8G is DX. The Tokina 11-16 DX is about the same price as a Nikon 35mm G FX lens.

Bill_de Loc: US

I have the Nikkor DX 12-24 F4.0G. I used the lens a lot when all Nikon digital was DX. I now mostly use an older AF-s 17-35 on a full frame body for similar shots.

I never compared it to other lenses of its type, so I can't say it is the best, just that I find it to be very good. Under the same circumstances I would buy it again.

---

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Consider doing a 3 shot overlapping vertical pano with your 17mm. I do these handheld, keeping my bottom border at the bottom of the viewfinder for the three shots, with about a 25% overlap. Photoshop will merge the 3 shots seemlessly and I can also straighten any curved perspective lines in Photoshop as well.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

I use the Tokina 11-20mm f2.8. Fantastic lens for landscapes but I also use a 50mm f1.8 and make panoramas for landscapes.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Of the lenses you mentioned as owning, the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G opened to 17mm is your best bet. I don't think you would want anything longer than 24mm which would present a 36mm equivalent,
If you are looking for a Prime lens you pretty much have to look at FX lenses. The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G and Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G FX lenses run in the $750-$800 range.
With DX lenses you will have to go with zoom lenses. The DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G is rated highly and runs around $900. The DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G goes for about $1,150.

BebuLamar

What kind of lens is landscape lens? I do landscape with 20mm lens to 300mm lens and all in between on an FX camera. I don't see a specific focal length range for landscape.

Tikva Loc: Waukesha, WI

Thank you for all of the quick responses. I have read all of them so far and will keep on reading. I don't plan on adding a new lens for a few months, but I'm trying to decide which lens I should add. I'm trying to get the most out of my D500 camera since I don't want to move to a FF camera for the reasons stated before. I'm 73 and want to spend as much of my spare time doing photography and PP with Photoshop CC. I'm still working for maybe another year or so and then I'll retire, again, and have more time. Want to get my equipment while I'm still working, LOL.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Consider learning stitching and proper handling for that (tripod).

The lens itself is not really of concern once you go that way.

Just consider that if you use a wide angle you get more of the scene but fewer details. Stitching allows you to get more details (as much as you want ~ depend on the focal length) but you need a pano head and a GOOD tripod.

Jim Bob

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You already have what you need. Many inexperienced landscape photographers believe that you absolutely need an ultra wide lens to do landscapes. The problem with wide and ultra wide lenses is twofold. First is the unnatural rendering of perspective - perspective extension - which shows things that are close to the lens as very large, and things at a distance as being 1000s of feet away. The second issue is the way things that are above and below the horizon, especially near the corners - become distorted. A round ball becomes an egg. Things become wider and lose their natural look. This may be ok for an artistic interpretation, but personally I don't care for the look.

If you visit a fine art museum, examine the work of the landscape masters. I'll bet that you'll realize that none involve anything resembling a wide or ultra wide point of view. These artists painted what they saw, and when they wanted to take in a wider view they would tilt their heads up and down, and turn from left to right to take in a wider/taller view.

You can do this with a "normal" lens by simply taking a series of overlapping shots and using software to stitch the resulting images into a larger one. Photoshop and Lightroom both do that, and there are a number of third party applications that do this as well.

As an example, here are a few stitched panos, taken with 42mm, 45mm, 85mm and 100mm lens, on a full frame camera.

You don't always need a tripod with a pano head. You can do them hand held if you'd like. The only time you actually need a pano-specific head (nodal pano head) is when you are trying to shoot a scene that has objects in the foreground that would create a parallax error when you stitch the frames together. An example might be a utility pole when taking a series from across the street. The apparent location of the pole relative to the background would change if it is included in two of the shots. To see what I mean, look at something with foreground and background objects - close one eye, then open it and close the other. You will see things a little differently - this is an example of parallax error. By determining the optical center of the lens (nodal point or no-parallax point), you will not have this error. Using a nodal head in those situations is really useful with a prime lens, a lot harder when you are using a zoom, because as you zoom, the nodal point may change, depending on which lens you are using.

3 frames, 42 mm, hand held

(Download)

5 frames, 85mm, on a tripod.

(Download)

3 frames, 45mm, on a tripod

(Download)

4 frames, 100mm, on a tripod

(Download)