karno Loc: Chico ,California

I appreciate your thoughts, What I was attempting to say is that if any foreground in the image when doing a panorama using say a 50mm then focus stacking as well as stitching will be needed to get foreground in focus. So in that case you have much more post. I see a lot of folks using stitching over wide Angle I can see this working only some of the time. but out of all my images the wide angle and mages have more character and movement.

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Try the Tokina 11-16 PRO for F mount. $400 new; great lens.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Well there is definitely the question of personal likes and dislikes to consider. I personally would like to see aspiring photographers try everything and form their on opinion rather than offering up reasons not to try something. ETTR Vs ETTL. JPG vs RAW. Color Vs Black and white. What ever. Try to give all avenues a chance you'd be surprised at what might be appealing.
When we disparage methods &etc to the neophyte, we have taken the first step towards killing creativity

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I've made two auto trips to the west coast and I mostly used my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for my landscapes. While there are beautiful vistas in the area you'll be visiting, the mesas and buttes (and cacti) will be small (in the photo) if you only shoot wide angle. I would suggest keeping your 18-55 and purchasing a 55-200. The thing to remember is that you want to shoot for the maximum depth of field in your landscapes and your 18-55 will do that. I don't think I shot at f/2.8 on my trips.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

And if you can, at your first foray at shooting the dry sandy rocky West, take a few hours trying out different settings. I screwed up and forgot my CPL filter - lots of glare to compensate for that I'm not used to in the green Midwest. Needless to say, Moab's camera store got an emergency visit the next day.

CO

If you don't have a circular polarizer yet be sure to get one before your trip. They can cut through the glare on foliage that has a shiny surface. It will help to saturate colors a little more. You can also darken blue skies. Clouds will be a little better defined.

Also purchase a couple of neutral density filters if you will be photographing flowing water. You can give flowing water a silky look. Stay away from variable density filters.

btbg

The answer to your question is that it depends.

I don't know what your shooting style is or what things you are going to see. If you are planning to shoot slot canyons then a wider angle lens might be a good idea.

The first thing to do before deciding on whether or not to get any additional lenses is to look at photos that you have already taken and see what focal length or lengths you most commonly use. The problem with wide angle in the desert southwest is that it can make background features so small as to render them insignificant.

As far as the 35mm 1.8 the best use of it would be if you are going to shoot the milky way at night. It's perfect for that kind of photography.

When we toured Arizona, Utah and Nevada last year I used a 16-35 on my full frame camera for slot canyons, a 24-70 for normal landscapes, usually at about 50mm. That would be about the equivalent of your 35 mm on a crop sensor camera. I also found that I used my 70-200 for some landscape shots and occasionally used my 150-600. The reality is that what lenses individuals use to shoot a particular subject depend on your shooting style.

Stitching photos together can be an excellent option to replace wide angle as long as you are shooting from a tripod and overlap your photos carefully.

In fact, although I do own multiple wide angle lenses my priority was and still is to get the fastest glass that I can afford and the larger zoom range. In most cases people find out that they wish they had a bigger lens not that they wish they could go wider.

I would stick with what I have and just use a tripod and stitch photos together if there is some reason you need to go wider, the exception being slot canyons.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Your 35 is covered by the other lens so you will be carrying two lenses that duplicate
35 is not wide

donald4u Loc: California

I never thought of my kit lens as a wide angle lens. I have a Tamron 16-300 mm which has served me well. I bought off ebay a 10-20 nikon lens. Check out B&H and Adoramma camera for used or refurbished lens. My Tamron is my go to lens. I have shot air shows, car shows and California missions. Just a suggestion. Go into a camera store and check them out.

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

I would suggest that you get something in the 10-20mm range. 18mm is not wide enough if you are going to shoot in any confined locations.

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

These are nice images you posted after this post.

But in your second image in particular, what is your subject? The flowers or the waterfall in the background? It's a composition that is often done by people who use really wide angle lenses, and while pretty cool, it's not how we see the world, and it is definitely a "forced" perspective, that forces you to split your attention to two subjects in the composition, weakening it IMO.

I prefer to compose my landscape images with a more natural perspective, and more like a landscape painter might view the scene - not like a photographer with an ultra=wide lens. The UW lens is an aesthetic I am not a fan of. But as you know, photography, and art in general, is very subjective. So just because I don't care for it doesn't mean it's not good. . .

On the other hand, I don't understand your reference to an "illusion of movement" and that somehow it is missing from stitched images - is that because the image is stitched, or because of the focal length used and it's lack of extension distortion? I fail to see any illusion of movement in either of your two images. And other than shooting a few extra images and spending a few extra seconds stitching them, once a pano is stitched it is no different than any other single image in terms of post processing.

https://petapixel.com/2016/10/27/stitching-panorama-forget-wide-angle-lens-home/

Have you tried stitching yourself? (asks the guy who owns a 14-24 and uses it on FX cameras).

tbsteph Loc: Ohio

Your 18-55 will likely meet most of your needs. I would highly recommend taking a longer lens (70-200, etc.). Places like the Petrified Forest NP, Valley of Kings, Monument Vally, The Aches NP, Grand Canyon NP are example of places where a longer telephoto would be useful. (FWIW, I have visited and photographed most of the notable (And some not so notable) areas within Arizona and Utah. I would feel much more constrained without a longer telephoto than something wider than 18mm. (One exception would be Antelope Canyon - wide(r) needed.) Enjoy. Lifetime of opportunities in that part of the US.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Kinda sorta exactly. I've seen some pictures of great landscapes, beautiful vistas, lovely forests- and the thing was the thing. BIIG tree- no detail. LOONG beach shot- no detail. Etc. I like a lot of sharp. Plus looking at faces when I say: "Sure- just zoom in on that!"and they go "Ooh!" That tree has bark with texture, and a squirrel; that beach is littered with shells and driftwood.
I've got one here. Last Malibu lifeguard station before Santa Monica: rocks, people, beach, surf, dim cloudy sunset- kind of a classy shot. As long as you don't know I was trying to get a frame for the seals in the surf. *I* could see them very well but my 24mm lens was too wide. *sigh*

karno Loc: Chico ,California

Pretty much just posted my two last WA images that I took. I do have examples of movement in past posts. My point was panorama is not a replacement for a wide angle. And it is a good Lens to own if you want to learn many aspects of photography. OP already has a stitch lens. What's the subject in the waterfall image? The waterfall!! I like to experiment with lots of techniques including stitching if needed. I find it works sometimes, I checked out some of your stitched images they look cool but what was your subject ?? This not supposed to be a competition. I feel stitched images can look a bit flat. I will post my last stitched image, I stitched out of necessity only, I am sure you will love it since it is stitched. Oh and the subject is the waterfall.

therwol Loc: USA

There was another long thread about this recently, and I'll say the same thing. You may need many focal lengths to shoot landscapes. It depends on what you want to show and how you want to frame your shots. If you are satisfied with the performance of your kit lens, then don't buy something that duplicates what it can do in terms of focal length.

You may under some circumstances want to go wider or longer. How many lenses do you want to carry with you and how much do you want to spend?

I believe that some of the suggestions here are for some rather pricey lenses with top notch performance. Nothing wrong with that if you want to spend the money.

Yes, stitching photos shot with a normal lens to create a landscape is the best way to go. If you want to do this, then I think you should keep the 35mm f/1.8. It's one of the best lenses in this focal length that Nikon has ever made, especially for a DX camera.