I have a Nikon D-90 and I am an amateur photographer doing kids photography indoors, and family pictures while travelling.

I have the following -

  • 18-105mm VR – Kit Lens that came with the D90
  • Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G
  • Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm F/4.5-5.6G VR
  • Basic tripod

Of late I have developed a flavour towards landscape photography especially in dark and low light conditions. To support this I want to add a wide angle lens to my collection, something like a Nikon 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G or a Tamron 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G. But as I understand, a 3.5/4.5 aperture would still restrict me, so that I couldn’t click bright and sharp pictures in low light situations. Hence I am looking for a wide angle lens with low aperture like 2.8 or less. What are my options? I have also read that the Tokina Af11-16 f2.8 is good. Has anyone any feedback on this? Is a small focal length 11-16 useful?

  • 3
    I don't think you'll be restricted by the smaller apature. As I understand it, for landscape photography you're typically going to be using a smaller apature anyway (f8+) to maintain depth of field, so you'd want to use a tripod and a longer exposure to take landscape pictures in low light conditions. See also: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2136/…
    – forsvarir
    Dec 15, 2011 at 15:13
  • correct, the aperture is mainly an indication of optical quality rather than usefulness of the lens in low light when talking about wideangle lenses.
    – jwenting
    Dec 16, 2011 at 8:51

4 Answers 4


I do most landscape photography at at least f/8 or f/11 and with a tripod. I use a Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX lens and it's a nice sharp lens. I have borrowed the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, and it is also very sharp. The range of that lens (11-16) makes it almost like a prime though, there isn't much range to it, not like a 10-24mm.

It's a personal choice, but I really like the ultra wide 8-12mm focal lengths for landscapes, but you can easily stitch together a few frames if you can't go that wide.


I would also consider the Sigma 12-24mm.

This is a fantastic wide angle lens perfect for Landscape photography.

You would also be looking for a large depth of field so that the whole images is in focus, with a narrow apeture you will get background blur, which for most landscapse isn't what you want.

Before buying a lens, try using filters such as an ND or CL as these give an entirely different look to landscape images without a new lens.


Just a reminder that one problem with using standard lenses and the DX sensors is that your effective lens size increase by a factor of about 1.5 due to the sensor size. This results in wide angle lenses having a much narrower field of view than on an FX sensor based camera.

Everyone else has pointed out the basics: don't worry about F stop minimum and use a tripod. Onme more point to note if you're going to work with a tripod is to consider using a cable release to prevent blur occuring when you press the shutter release.


You're restricting yourself way too much by considering only a few zooms. For landscapes (when using a wideangle, that's certainly not a given, one of my favourite landscapes every I shot at 500mm) especially where rapid response to changing conditions isn't required, a prime serves very well (in fact, they can serve very well for almost anything).
You'll end up saving weight, size, and maybe money buying quality primes over zooms, and Nikon makes some of the best (if not THE best) wideangle primes on the market.
My favourite is the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor, with the 35mm f/2.0 AF-D for when 20 is too long.
There are shorter primes from several sources, best of them of course Nikon (I've tried some older Sigma primes and wasn't impressed, but never tested their latest EX primes which should be very good indeed).
In your case, I'd look seriously at buying a 14mm Sigma EX and a 20mm Nikkor.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.