Best low light lens for mountain sunset and sunrise

mustangdaren

For the money I would get the Tamron 17-50VC f/2.8 and a Nikon 18-300. I had the Tamron that I used for a D90 and D7000. It is a very sharp lens and great for landscape. A plus it it is image stabilized for those family trips and indoor shooting. You will be wasting your money on the 35 f/1.8. I never again put it on my camera after getting the 17-50. The Nikon 18-300 will be perfect for everything else including wildlife in the Blue Ridge Mountains which you are gong to want something at least 200mm. For those sunsets get you a split neutral density filter for the lens. Trust me, it will make a huge difference. A good polarizer filter to capture those blue skies and the crisp Autumn colors also. Don't let the Tamron name scare you away, they are really making some great lenses now. Have fun in the mountains, visit Black Balsam Mountain while you are there in NC. One of my favorite places in all of the Blue Ridge and Smokey Mountains with awesome views and sunset/sunrises.

mustangdaren

The photo was taken with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC in the Blue Ridge Mountains on a Nikon D90 using a Tiffen .6 graduated ND filter.

mustangdaren

tcole1983

Well as for KR...believe what you want, but I would look elsewhere if you want serious information. I have looked a couple of his things recently and they seemed slightly better then in the past, but at one point all you needed was a D40 and 18-55...then what I think he hated the D800 right? I say take it with a grain of salt.

As for the lenses for this situation...as I mentioned before you aren't going to need a super fast lens. A tripod is probably helpful. It really depends on how you plan to shoot your landscapes. You could shoot a sunset at 300mm if it is a mountain in the distance. I got a 12-24 lens thinking I needed to be super wide for landscapes and it just isn't true. I hardly even shoot at 17 mm on my 17-55.

Some sunset examples:
105 F2.8


18-200 @ 95mm


18-200 @ 48mm


18-200 @ 26mm


17-55 @ 55mm


17-55 @ 55mm

tcole1983

I took a second to glance over the KR article and he uses his wide angle lenses just as I do. It either gives you a different perspective or it gives you a wide view of something close. I used my lens today at 17mm when trying to get large buildings in whole. Best uses for ultra wides for me is when you can't back up inside somewhere or outside in a city and want a building or interior. This is totally different from a landscape of a mountain range. Unless you hike right up to the base and then try to get everything you won't need the UW. It just really depends on what you are going for...just don't be fooled by what you think you need compared to what you might actually really need.

Also a note on the sunset pictures above. They are all handheld or with a monopod.

mustangdaren

Oops, ment to say graduated neutral density filter not split nd filter. Same thing but if you search for them that is what it is most likely listed as. Had pretty good luck with the Tiffen filters. Not bad for the price. I am sure the B+W and Hoya are better but are three times the cost. Another lens option to consider to go with the 17-50 VC would be the new Nikon 70-200 f/4. A very very sharp lens. I use the 80-200 f/2.8 but it is a little soft at f/2.8 and a bit heavy where the 70-200 f/4 is lighter and sharper. I have some photos in my gallery taken in the mountains with the Tamron 17-50 VC at www.darenprice.com. Just about every one of the photos in the landscape gallery was taken with it.

Msmoto

I am a bit confused as to what "low light" and "sunset" have to do with each other. I tend to shoot sunrise/sets with either wide e.g., 16-35mm f/4 VR Nikkor, 10.5 f/2.8 Nikkor, or long….400mm +.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/13491402415/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8944408490/in/set-72157634238703006

Then the idea of a "fast" lens… on DX, a 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor is super for a walk around lens. Or for slightly longer, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

Please understand, i like prime lenses in general, so my suggestions are on that basis unless landscapes are done with no recon to assess the lens needed.

mustangdaren

I agree, 2.8 really makes no difference for landscape work. I usually stick around F/8 and use a tripod if needed for maximum sharpness. About the only time I use f/2.8 is shooting portraits for shallow depth of field or sports in low light to obtain the fastest shutter speed without resorting to really high ISO settings. What DX needs is a pro grade 16-85 f/4 lens similar to the full frame 24-120VR. That would be an excellent do all lens. The Tamron 17-50 is an excellent compromise and can be found for $400 on ebay. Other than the exteme corners being soft at f/2.8 it is very close in sharpness to my Nikon 24-70. At F/4 to F/8 it is extremely sharp for landscape work. I have owned a bunch of DX lens and learned the hard way through trial and error but the 17-50 was one of my favorites and the Tokina lens were my least favorite. The Tokinas were all sharp but showed a lot of CA in bright light and seemed low contrast in dim light. After trying two versions of the 80-400 and the 12-24 lens I decided I would not own another Tokina lens. That little experiment cost me a bunch in lost resale value.

Photobug

I am a bit confused as to what "low light" and "sunset" have to do with each other. I tend to shoot sunrise/sets with either wide e.g., 16-35mm f/4 VR Nikkor, 10.5 f/2.8 Nikkor, or long….400mm +.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/13491402415/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8944408490/in/set-72157634238703006

Then the idea of a "fast" lens… on DX, a 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor is super for a walk around lens. Or for slightly longer, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

Please understand, i like prime lenses in general, so my suggestions are on that basis unless landscapes are done with no recon to assess the lens needed.

Great sun set pictures Msmoto. Your lighthouse pictures are outstanding.

Godless

a 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor is super

Definitely. Undeniably.

A fantastic lens. My favorite Nikkor so far. But the price is sad, compared to Canon 24mm f/1.4 II