I need a good nikon Wide angle zoom. Suggestions?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Hooligan Dan, Mar 31, 2008.

  1. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    So, I got my D300 a couple weeks ago and I'm trying to weed out all the crappy equipment I was using with my D100. A new wide angle is next on my list. Now, I don't want to be spending 1500 bones on a lens, but I don't want a cheap lens plagued by soft focus, flares, and chromatic aberrations. I've searched around, looking everywhere I can think of, but I just can't find what I'm looking for. Somewhere in the 16mm range on the lower end of the zoom, but no more than 18 on the low end. High end; 50mm or less. And f2.8 throughout the range at the minimum.

    It doesn't even have to be nikon. Sigma will be fine as long as the aforementioned problems aren't an issue with the off-brand lens.

    So, what do you guys have?

    And thanks for the help.
     
  2. Trenton Romulox

    Trenton Romulox TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Well, if you plan on sticking with DX, the Nikon 12-24 f/4 is a great wide-angle zoom. But, since you said f/2.8, that might not be a good fit.

    I personally use the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. Which I love. A lot. It's sharp, sharp, sharp. The sharpest wide-angle zoom out there as far as I know, and have heard. But, it doesn't take filters, which is a bit of a downer. But, I've seen people that have made their own filter holders for it, if you ever wanted to do that, I'm sure you could. But, I mean, the 14-24 is really as sharp as they come at that focal length. I love mine.

    I've heard good stuff about a Sigma 10-20mm, I believe it was a Sigma at least. A lot of people on here seem to use that for Nikon, or Canon, or whatever.

    Hope this helped somewhat, Hooligan Dan.
     
  3. JimmyO

    JimmyO TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The sigma 10-20 is a great lens. I really enjoy it.
     
  4. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    That's the lens you used on the snowy landscape if my memory serves me right. I'll check it out. The filter issue is a bit of a bummer, but I'm sure there's some way around it. Thanks.
     
  5. Trenton Romulox

    Trenton Romulox TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Correct. The very lens. It's an awesome lens.
     
  6. Lyncca

    Lyncca TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I just recently purchased the Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 PRO DX. It got really great reviews and so far I am really impressed with the quality as well. It also only costs half as much as the Nikon version. This is my first non-Nikon lens but went ahead when many of the reviewers rated it higher than the Nikon version...

    *Edit, sorry, I forgot you wanted a 2.8, so this may not work for you, but I wanted to leave the post so that you may be able to look if interested.
     
  7. Trenton Romulox

    Trenton Romulox TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I think the biggest appeal of the Nikon 14-24 that I love so dearly is that it's got such little distortion. I mean, it's got the normal distortion that you'd get at 14mm, I mean, that's impossible to avoid, but that's the main draw of that focal length. But at the longer lengths, like 18 or 24mm, the lens has great, great control of distortion, and has no falloff, like, at all. It's an amazing optical performer, state of the art, really.
     
  8. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    the sigma 10-20 gives an equivalent field of view to a 15-30ism mm. That's almost the 14-24 on 35mm.

    for DX, the sigma is a wiser choice IMO, and can take normal filters, and is only $500, and should hold its value reasonably well considering it's off-brand.
     
  9. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    I think you have this all backwards you should have hought of his when buying your body. You might have been better off buying a cheaper body and gone for the "1500 bones lens".
     
  10. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The reason I don't want to drop 1500 on a wide angle is because the 70-200 is my workhorse. So I spent the money there. I only use a wide angle about 25% of the time. I see no reason to waste the money of a top of the line one when it will go to waste. I'd keep using my cheap nikkor one if it went down to 2.8, but it doesn't, which makes shooting in low light places like gyms or at city council meetings rather annoying.
     
  11. Antithesis

    Antithesis No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Caribbean
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Tokina is about to release an 11-16 f2.8, that supposedly has phenomenal image quality and will cost around $700. I use the Tokina 12-24, which I think is a wonderful lens, but it has it's problems (such as severe CA and occasional flare). Ken Rockwell has a review of the new Tokina, but he is biased as can be. I'd just wait until we see more reviews of it, it sounds like it might be a perfect match. Oh, and keep in mind you can hand-hold a wide-angle down to some really low shutter speeds. I've held mine down below an 8th of a second and gotten sharp pictures, plus with the high ISO capabilities of the d300 it seems like an f4 might save you some money.
     
  12. shivaswrath

    shivaswrath TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norwalk, CT
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    the tokina is fine and good if you have a D70+ Nikon, for those saving in the interim, it's out of the question, and leaves only the 12-24 and 14-24 in the equation. . .since the 12-24 is selling for nearly $1k, spending an extra $600 might be worth it for the f/2.8 if that's what you need. . .
     

Share This Page