Is this a good lens for landscape photography? If not can someone point me towards a better alternative? Thanks
1856380
It is an excellent lens for landscape photography. Light, sharp, relatively inexpensive, takes filters. You can get marginally better iq if you want to pay twice or 3 times as much
1856381
Its decent, but with the 20mm 1.8G or 24mm 1.8G, both of those lenses are much better for landscapes than the 18-35mm. The 24mm 1.8G is hands down sharper than both the 20mm 1.8G and 18-35mm. At 24mm's, its the typical landscape lens and it costs the same as this lens. Cons, its a prime and this is a zoom. But, I'd rather scoop a 24mm 1.8G and 35mm 1.8G because primes will always be sharper.
1856382
Derek, It is an excellent lens for landscape assuming you like to use wide angle (I do). Very practical range. There are other lenses out there that are technically better ( nikon 14-24) but you will be hard pressed to see the difference. One of the things that I love about lens is that it is light so it is easy to hike with. In addition, it has the 77mm filter size that other quality Nikon glass uses.
1856383
It is a hell of a great lens for its price. If you have extra money you can consider other lenses such as: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-17-35mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOS) again, if you have extra money. I have used both but I was happier with this 18-35mm lens because it's so light weight. Unless you have an old camera with not-so-great ISO performance or you like to do astrophotography, I think this lens can make many people happy.
1856384
I looked at both this lens & the 16-35mm lens. I got the 16-35mm lens. In my search for other lenses I found that the 18-35 is not that great.
1186461
I use this lens primarily for architectural photos. But I imagine it would be ok. It's not the fastest lens in its class, so if stopping action in low light is an issue, you may want to consider that.
1125762
If taken outdoor pictures then this will be wonderful lens. I do most landscape and occasionally indoor portraits. It give you very sharp pictures and autofocus is so quick at dark environment. Remember this is a prime lens, not 24-70 nor 70-200 mm F2.8, you have to be very creative and zoom in/out by your foot. I sold mine Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 to get this one and no regret (I like the Sigma very well and was too heavy when hiking, nothing wrong with that lens, just to clarify)
920086
This lens is definitely not for landscape and will scream either "stalker" or "rob me" in a street scenario. The 18-35 is a big lens for street, though would probably do very well with it.
2236918
It's ok but not great, for daily use i would recommend a 24-105mm, for landscape 17-40mm or 16-35mm, or course your gonna add a few hundred bucks for those lenses but it's worth, I have one of these (28-135) I rarely use it... I don't even know where it is right now... but i have one. If you're really gonna do photography try to invest on a few good lenses...
1908466
The kit lens which comes with this camera 18-55 would be far more satisfactory for landscapes. I have a sigma pro model 24-70mm and i still find myself using the 18-55 for landscapes/walk around lens. For prints/well composed shots less than 12 by 8 inches or internet you can't distinguish photo quality.
348875
Hi Bill,Sony SAL18250 Lens is good for landscape shooting. Here are more lenses for landscape shooting: SAL1118, SAL16F28, SAL1635Z, SAL1650, SAL1680Z, SAL16105, SAL18552, SAL18135, SAL20F28, SAL24F20Z, SAL2470Z, SAL2875. - Vincent
542246
I've found that this lens is more valuable as a wide-angle lens on a full frame camera. On a crop camera, it feels more like a portrait lens. That being said, it's an amazing lens. I'd like to add that Sigma has released a very worthy and cost effective alternative, which you may want to consider. I happen to own the Canon version, but I've read great reviews of the Sigma.
1505583
This camera does excel in 2 of the 3 ways you mentioned...very lightweight and easy to travel with and it does great with portraits. I have not personally done many landscape type pictures so I am not sure how it does in that aspect!
827133
It's a good lens for my needs. I have found the 18-300mm type lenses just don't do all that well, I think too much range to cover but this does well and being a f/2.8 it's better for darker shots. Heavier than a kit lens but worth it in my opinion.
1820408
Ian,Do you mean one can use this 50mm lens for portrait as well as nature/landscape photography? What I can understand from your post is that this lens can be used as a walk around lens. Correct?Thanks.
2279392
The short answer is that this lens is no "powerhouse." I have used it quite effectively for artists' portraits at lawn concerts and for fairly-close nature images (no farther than 20 meters -- 60-65 feet) but beyond that it is of little practical value. Within that range, however, it produces an exceptional image. Hope that helped ...
1407036
I've never used this lense for landscapes. I generally use it for portraits, which I find it works great for.
1402684
It's a great lens for portraits. I use it all the time! If I schedule portrait sessions -it's pretty much the only lens that stays on my camera. (I use the Nikon D600.)
1190460
I have a D7000 and use this lens a lot. Good overall lens-sharp good with landscapes.
1833849
Just beware of putting subjects on the edge of the frame when @ 17mm - 25mm. You are going to get horizontal distortion, not a ton but its not flattering to those on the side. No one would ever notice this on a landscape photo but when its a person... Pretty easy to fix in post if you have a decent software. Its a great lens though!
1414089
Honestly, you would be better of with something like new nikon 20mm 1.8 if you are looking to do wide angle astrophotography. This lens is a fantastic all around landscape lens, but for that application you want as muchligjt as possible, and the extra couple stops means a lower iso is possible