Am I Wasting Money

[oldpapa]

I shoot mostly landscapes. I have a Nikon D90 with the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and the Nikon 18-200mm lenses. I am thinking of buying either the Nikon 24mm 2.8D AF or the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D IF AF. My question is would either one be an upgrade over what I already have ?

[OsmosisStudios]

Well, the 18-200 is a decent travel lens or walkaround zoom, but if you're specialized like that, you may benefit from different, more specialized lenses. In your case, I'd go with something like a 10-24 or 12-24 or similar. If you're good with the 24mm length on DX, then you could even step up to the 16-35.

[ravncat]

Yeah, you're not going to gain much over the 18-200 on either the 24mm 2.8 afd or the 18-35. You're looking at slightly better aperture on the 24mm 2.8. Those older wide angle lenses aren't so wide on a crop camera - and don't do a good job of light collimation. They'll work, but you probably won't see too much of an improvement in sharpness or distortion. I'd agree with Os above. You should probably look at an ultrawide zoom - in the 10-25 range (give or take a few mm on each side)

[inkista]

One more vote for an ultrawide. While having f/2.8 is a nice thing, it's not necessarily something a landscape photographer has a crying need for. A slower lens is going to be smaller and lighter and let you hike it out into the wilderness a little easier. An f/4 or so ultrawide sounds like it might be the ticket.

[sk66]

+4. Those lenses would be a waste of money for landscapes...in your general price range look at the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 11-16 (better/more money).