Nikon 12-24mm vs. Nikon 18-200mm for landscapes: I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile. I find myself missing the...

augieg27 Loc: Central California

I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile.
I find myself missing the longer reach of the 18-200 and limited by the 24mm. Being a novice, I don't see much difference of IQ between the two lenses.
Please advise.
Augie

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

That's why my walk-around is an 18-200.
But it depends on what & how you want to shoot.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

SWA lenses are kinda limiting IMHO as the subjects are so tiny in the resultant image. I don't know what camera system you have (DX or FX) but I'm assuming a DX considering the lenses. Personally, I'd use the 18-200 as it would be more versatile and 18mm (27mm equivalent on a crop sensor) should work for most scenarios. Better to do a pano of stitched shots if needed.
Edit, the one place wider is better is when shooting interiors when space is at a premium...Just make sure the camera is level and nothing is closer to the edges of the frame to minimize distortion.

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

Based on UHH advice, I purchased the Nikon 18 - 200mm lens as my walk about lens and I'm really happy with it. However, my friend bought the Nikon 16 - 85mm lens and his provides very slightly sharper pictures (same camera for both of us). My understanding is that there's a bit of a trade off for long zoom lenses, in that they give up some sharpness for reach especially when fully extended. We both shoot mostly outdoor shots and I prefer the extra reach for the occasionally distant subject but I'm considering purchasing the 16 - 85 mm or even a prime lens for landscape shots.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

augieg27 wrote:

I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile.
I find myself missing the longer reach of the 18-200 and limited by the 24mm. Being a novice, I don't see much difference of IQ between the two lenses.
Please advise.
Augie

With what you said, I assume you don't need the reach of the 12MM. If that is the case return the 12-24 if you can.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

augieg27 wrote:

I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile.
I find myself missing the longer reach of the 18-200 and limited by the 24mm. Being a novice, I don't see much difference of IQ between the two lenses.
Please advise.
Augie

I shoot a lot of landscapes, and I have both those lenses. I use the 12-24 more often, but then I tend to like wider lenses for landscapes. It's just personal preference. If you never feel you need a wider lens than the 18, maybe you don't need the 12-24.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you all,
I was considering selling the 12-24 because I prefer the flexibility of the 18-200 and you made my decision so much easier to make.
Augie

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

augieg27 wrote:

I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile.
I find myself missing the longer reach of the 18-200 and limited by the 24mm. Being a novice, I don't see much difference of IQ between the two lenses.
Please advise.
Augie

Super wide lenses are a specialized group. Not easy to use correctly, and very specific about what kinds of subjects they will render in an interesting fashion. They are not true-to-life with the extension distortion getting worse as the focal length decreases. We just don't see the world through wide-angle eyes. Our eyes seem to have more of a normal or telephoto perspective with a panoramic angle of view. So when I need a wider view, I seldom reach for a shorter lens. I find the results to be far better to my eye when I stitch a panorama with a longer lens. On a full frame camera, for my landscape images, the most used lenses are my 45mm and my 85 mm.

So, I would probably suggest you stick with the 18-200 - if it is a Nikkor, it's a decent enough lens.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I use the canon 18-200 as my walk around. But I have found the the vast majority of my shots are between 30 and 120. So I am seriously considering a 24-105L

repleo Loc: Boston

augieg27 wrote:

I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile.
I find myself missing the longer reach of the 18-200 and limited by the 24mm. Being a novice, I don't see much difference of IQ between the two lenses.
Please advise.
Augie

...".Most people use ultrawides too sheepishly, and get crummy results with tiny subjects dwarfed in the middle of an open frame.....Ultrawides are not for "getting it all in." Ultrawides are for getting yourself, and therefore the viewer, right smack into the middle of something...."
Read this: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Gene51 wrote:

Super wide lenses are a specialized group. Not eas... (show quote)

Thank you Gene, you described what I found out after buying the 12-24 lens.
Augie

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

augieg27 wrote:

I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm and am kind of questioning myself if the investment was worthwhile.
I find myself missing the longer reach of the 18-200 and limited by the 24mm. Being a novice, I don't see much difference of IQ between the two lenses.
Please advise.
Augie

My 90% of the time landscape lens is the Nikon 16-35mm f4. I also use the Nikon 24-120 f4 for the other 10%. I like to use these two because they both take the same MM filter size.
I rarely use anything over 120 mm.
When I started out all I had was the 18-200 and it worked well until I got into water falls and wanted to get foreground background shots and the entire falls in one shot, I then got the 16-35 and have never looked back.

PhotosByCat Loc: Baltimore, OH

repleo wrote:

...".Most people use ultrawides too sheepishly, and get crummy results with tiny subjects dwarfed in the middle of an open frame.....Ultrawides are not for "getting it all in." Ultrawides are for getting yourself, and therefore the viewer, right smack into the middle of something...."
Read this: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

I reallly enjoyed this article. Thanks for sharing. Learned something new.

Largobob

repleo wrote:

...".Most people use ultrawides too sheepishly, and get crummy results with tiny subjects dwarfed in the middle of an open frame.....Ultrawides are not for "getting it all in." Ultrawides are for getting yourself, and therefore the viewer, right smack into the middle of something...."
Read this: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

Repleo....thanks for posting that link. Very well written and full of thoughtful information.

GKarl Loc: Northern New Hampshire

I own a Nikon 12-24 and enjoy using it on various subjects. Classic cars, hand crafted boats, city streets as well as landscapes. The one lesson I learned is when you think you are too close —— Move closer.
I believe it is the lens that allows me to be the most expressive.
Don’t give up on it.