bbradford Loc: Wake Forest NC

Thank you for your civil and well thought out answer. I guess the best answer would be I was told I needed one from my local camera store.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Since you have been using the 18-270, take a look at the shots you have taken where you really like the composition (not necessarily the IQ) What length(s) are these shots? That should be your guide to your first prime.

If you decide you really need the benefits of a prime.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Bryan, if you're answering me, the way you phrased your question sounded like "advice" one might receive from an online blog, camera store, experienced friend ... I may not have picked the most effective method, but the goal was to try to shake you out of a predetermined conclusion.

LCD

A 100mm macro is a great walk around lens that lets you get up close and personal with the micro world.

bbradford Loc: Wake Forest NC

Thanks

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I have a lot of different lenses, some I bought, some I inherited when my brother in law died. I also do a lot of traveling, did the Panama Canal, Alaska, have been all up and down the east coast, birds, etc.. I recently went to Alaska, brought my Canon 16-35 2.8, my Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 24-70, and Canon 70-300. I took a total of 5500 pictures. My least used was the 35 mm, second least was the 24-70. Most used, the 16-35, then the 70-300. So, my suggestion is if you think you need a new lens for landscapes, I would definitely go with a zoom, something similar to the 16-35 2.8. You already have the long zoom, but my guess is at 18 mm, it's image quality is not as good as you might like, but then again, how good is good. To get the best focusing, learning about hyperfocusing. You will find that you want the foreground part of your photo in focus as well as out to infinity, so you will most likely want the minimum focal length, 16-24 mm, with an aperture of f11.0. If you are in a dark environment, such as a very cloudy day, you will need to go with ISO 800. Shutter speed of 1/100 should be good enough. However, this won't be fast enough if there is movement in the leaves.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

You want the 35mm lens.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Why do you NEED a prime lens?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

And they'll be happy to sell you one! Their motivation is profit, not helpfulness.

You say you mostly shoot nature and landscapes. Both those suggest that you're outdoors a lot with your gear and possibly carrying it some distance. Be a little wary of buying big, heavy lenses that will do little or nothing to improve your particular shooting capabilities.

Landscapes most often call for a wider lens and great depth of field (DoF) so that everything from near to far is sharply rendered. More often than not when shooting 'scapes, I'm stopping my lenses down to a relatively small aperture, seeking more DoF. A large aperture typically isn't needed for landscape photography (just makes for a bigger, heavier, much more expensive lens... besides, even with large aperture wide lenses cannot render very strong background blur effects).

You've got as wide as 18mm now. That's moderately wide. But maybe even wider would be fun. Nikon offers an AF-P 10-20mm VR lens that's inexpensive (about $300).... but it cannot autofocus on an older camera like D300. The two ultrawide Nikon lenses that can AF on that camera are ridiculously overpriced and quite possible the most expensive lenses of this type (AF-S 10-24mm, $900... and AF-S 12-24mm, $1150).

Fortunately there are a number of third party alternatives:

Tokina 11-20mm, $470 (older version 11-16mm may be found used, sharp but a bit prone to flare, narrow zoom range)
Tokina 12-28mm, $430 (older version 12-24mm may be found used)
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, $400 (rather big/heavy, a discontinued f/4.5-5.6 version is a lot smaller if you can find one)
Sigma 8-16mm, $700 (widest non-fisheye avail., heavy wide angle distortion, cannot use standard filters)
Sigma 12-24mm, $900... Art version $1600 (actually full frame capable lenses, which is why they are so expensive... also very big and heavy... and cannot use standard filters).
Tamron 10-24mm VC, $500... (haven't used this new lens with image stabilization, I wasn't impressed with the older, non-VC version).

You also mention "photographing nature". But that has all sorts of possibilities. Do you mean wildlife? If so, small wildlife like birds or large like elk or elephants? Or do you mean close-up and macro shots of bugs or flowers? Or maybe something else? It's pretty hard to recommend a lens without more info. Most true macro lenses and some more powerful zooms are primes.... but you already have a fairly powerful 270mm tele in your zoom. I don't know how close focusing it is (many zooms are labeled "macro", even tho they don't actually come anywhere close to it).

A lot of people buy a prime to shoot in low light situations and/or for portraits, neither of which seem to be major concerns of yours....

On your camera a 35mm gives approx. "normal" or "standard" angle of view. In other words, not wide or telephoto.

A 50mm lens on a DX camera like yours acts as a short telephoto, ideal for portraiture, among other things.

An 85mm lens is a little more powerful telephoto, also good for portraits, perhaps a little more candid because you'll be farther from your subject, but you also need more working distance so it might be difficult to use in smaller rooms indoors.


Shooting portraits "on location", often you can't control the background. Then it's desirable to have a larger aperture lens that can strongly blur the background down, making the sharply focused subject "pop" against it. This is just the opposite of landscape photography... In portraiture the tele and the large aperture are often used to reduce DoF. There are reasonably price, size & weight f/2, f/1.8 and even f/1.4 lenses in the 50mm focal length.... f/2 and f/1.8 in 85mm (there are also f/1.4 and even f/1.2... but they're a lot more expensive, bigger and heavier).

There also are macro lenses around these focal lengths. Nikon makes a bunch of different "Micro-Nikkors" themselves. But there are also a lot of good third party manufactured macro lenses. For example, one I use is the Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Macro ($524). This is a relatively compact "DX/crop only" lens (which would be fine on your D300). A nice thing about this lens is that it's got an f/2 aperture.... a stop larger than most macro lenses... which makes it more useful for portraits and low light shooting, in addition to macro (up to 1:1 or "life size"). On the other hand, it uses a relatively slow micro motor focus drive... that's fine for most macro and portraits, but not really quick enough for sports, active wildlife, or similar. (Note: macro lenses on the whole tend to be slower focusing.... they have to move their focusing elements a long, long way to focus from infinity to 1:1 a few inches in front of the lens... most also use a "long throw" focus design too, which emphasizes accuracy over speed. Not a problem with macro... heck I often just turn off AF and focus macro shots manually, anyway.)

You appear to have a pretty good understanding of what prime lenses offer... But need to take the next step and determine if those are actually needed, apply or are even practical for what you shoot. All the prime focal lengths you're considering are duplicates of focal lengths you've already got with your zoom. Personally I'd recommend that a 2nd lens expand your capabilities.... something wider, something longer or something much closer focusing. A larger aperture for low light/portraiture might be useful to some people... but is it what you need? Only you can say.

Hopefully this will help.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, they would tell you something like this to make a sale. Don't believe them. You need to do a little homework and ask yourself what and why you need a different lens. There are a lot of reasons to buy or need a different lens. As CHG_CANON has already pointed out many of the reasons. If your current lens isn't doing what you want it to do, or if you plan to try a different aspect of photography and a different lens is the ticket, then yes, ask a question here and get more information as to what the benefits of said lens might be.

PeterBergh

I beg to disagree. Many landscape photos are what Eliot Porter called intimate landscapes and they typically are made with a normal to short telephoto. Wide, sweeping landscapes may benefit from a moderately wide-angle lens. For me, a 24-105 covers almost all bases, from sweeping to intimate. I find that, most of the time, I use it around 50 mm.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

That's telling them!! If anyone wants to be rude I reply in a very like manner if not more so!

PhotosBySteve

Find all of your favorite images taken in the past with your 18-270mm. Chart the focal length and determine what focal length was most often used to produce your favorite shots. Then select a prime that closely matches that focal length. Then be prepared to use your feet to zoom in and out when using the prime lens. The prime will also save some weight over your zoom. Prime lenses quite often offer wider apertures at lower cost than zooms. Since you shoot primarily landscape, I would guess most of your images will be in the 18-50mm range. A 35mm lens will give the most normal view on your crop frame camera. If you get a prime, I highly suggest getting the fastest (widest aperture) lens you can afford. Which, will have better light gathering capabilities and better focusing in low light.

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

There really isn't a prime lens that will do both.
A 300 mm prime or more, is what you need for wildlife.
A 85 mm is more of a portrait lens. A 35 mm is about what you see with your eyes.
Personally, I have a Canon 300 mm L and a 1.4 and a 2x extenders for wildlife.
I use a 24-105 L for landscape.
I also have the Tamron G2 45mm prime.
It's a great lens, it's sharp, and is just about the same as the 50mm, and would be a good street lens.
For some reason, I don't seem to use it as much as I thought I would.
But you can use any lens for any situation. You still got the shot and that's all that counts.