Buying a Wide Angle

[tevo]

I am stuck between the 24-70, 17-35, and 17-55. Shooting a D7000, want as sharp as possible. Leaning towards the 17-x lenses, because on the crop body those are around a 24-70 ish, whereas the 24-70 is more like a 35-105, which is a bit too zoomy for what I'm looking for; I am looking for a good (wide angle) walkaround lens.

Halp!

 

[greybeard]

17-55 is a really nice all around range. It takes you from wide angle to short tele. I think the class in this range is the Nikkor 2.8. I have also read some good reviews on the Sigma 17-55 2.8

 

[bigtwinky]

24-70 isn't very wide on a crop camera.

What are you going to shoot?

One lens I see often recommended for Nikons is the Sigma 10-20mm. Now THAT is a wide angle. I have the Canon 10-22mm which I love shooting on my 7D (and the 16-35 for my 5D2). While doing urban walks or landscapes, it is usually my go-to lens on that camera. If you want wide.... go wide.

 

[cgipson1]

Nikon 10-24 sharp... (my perspective correction wasn't the greatest! I was standing across the street from the building.)

This was also taken with the 10-24

 

[fsquare]

Agree with cgipson...10-24mm is really sharp. All i used when i was shooting with the D300s

 

[2WheelPhoto]

If you're shooting portraiture/people, it was strongly suggested by my professor you don't go below 50mm. That doesn't matter what type body its on 50mm is 50mm and you'll pudge them up heh =)

Just my experience: on my D7000 I used the 24-70 f2.8, and I used it on the 70 end a whole lot more than the 24 end. It rarely saw 24mm.

For "wide angle" walk around I used the Tokina 11-16

 

[analog.universe]

If you're shooting portraiture/people, it was strongly suggested by my professor you don't go below 50mm. That doesn't matter what type body its on 50mm is 50mm and you'll pudge them up heh =)

In concept this is good advice, but I still think it's absurd to pick a focal length and decide that it's the appropriate cutoff. Plenty of people shoot portraits at 35, etc... How close you are to your subject, where in the frame they are, what angle you're shooting, and most importantly your personal preference will determine how wide is too wide for people.

I'm just generally opposed to "rules" like this, because it means people will shy away from wide people shots. You can shoot people at any focal length you want, as long as you keep in mind the type of perspective distortion that occurs as you change focal length.

 

[spacefuzz]

I also recommend that if you go wide, go WIDE. Get a 10-24 or close to that. It will blow your mind how much more of a scene you will see.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

If you're shooting portraiture/people, it was strongly suggested by my professor you don't go below 50mm. That doesn't matter what type body its on 50mm is 50mm and you'll pudge them up heh =)

In concept this is good advice, but I still think it's absurd to pick a focal length and decide that it's the appropriate cutoff. Plenty of people shoot portraits at 35, etc... How close you are to your subject, where in the frame they are, what angle you're shooting, and most importantly your personal preference will determine how wide is too wide for people.

I'm just generally opposed to "rules" like this, because it means people will shy away from wide people shots. You can shoot people at any focal length you want, as long as you keep in mind the type of perspective distortion that occurs as you change focal length.

Agree 100%, if you're into distortion/error correction its great. Sometimes I've had to do it in tight places. But as a rule my preferred lens won't be set under 50mm and the 24-70 serves me better than any 17-55 will for portraiture was my point =)

 

[analog.universe]

if you're into distortion/error correction its great.

Ahh yeah, I meant uncorrected... too much perfection in this supposed "art" of ours.

the 24-70 serves me better than any 17-55 will for portraiture was my point =)

This I certainly agree with. 24-105 even better still (does Nikon make one of those?)... My point was, if you need 17, there's nothing "wrong" with the 17-55 for portraits.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I think this is a tricky question to answer really, when you get a proper wide angle lens you realise it can be highly 'tricky' to use at times. If you are shooting at 10mm you have to be really careful! As you can get a very flat photograph if you do not consider the foreground of your photo, also the fact it makes the foreground look huge and the background look tiny is a very challenging aspect of ultra wide angle lenses. When I got my 10-20, I realised how much easier it was to get good shots shooting at the 18mm of my kit lens than it was easy to get good shots at 10mm.

Anyway, in conclusion the point I am making is... if you want a true ultra wide angle lens be prepared to really learn a new way of looking at things. If you want to just walk around and simply pick your camera up and shoot the things you are simply seeing in front of you, get a 17-50 lens.

And my advice on the Nikon 17-55 2.8, consider the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 before you drop any cash on the Nikon. These lenses are just as good optically according to test results and are a darn slight cheaper. If you need the bulletproof build quality of the Nikon, then by all means get it though. The Nikon dosen't even have VR and I know some people will come on and say you don't need VR in this range, VR can be extremely useful at times when a tripod is not handy at any focal length.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

if you're into distortion/error correction its great.

Ahh yeah, I meant uncorrected... too much perfection in this supposed "art" of ours.

the 24-70 serves me better than any 17-55 will for portraiture was my point =)

This I certainly agree with. 24-105 even better still (does Nikon make one of those?)... My point was, if you need 17, there's nothing "wrong" with the 17-55 for portraits.

They offer an 18-105, but not as sharp and not f2.8 -)

 

[saharac]

I have been researching for a good all purpose lens and the Sigma 17-70 is what I have narrowed down to.. Fits the bill for a wide-angle as well as has that little extra reach... Maybe something to consider

 

[analog.universe]

I have been researching for a good all purpose lens and the Sigma 17-70 is what I have narrowed down to.. Fits the bill for a wide-angle as well as has that little extra reach... Maybe something to consider

This is a nice looking lens! I researched it for a while. Good performance if you don't mind the vari-aperture. (2.8-4.0 isn't even that bad)

 

[Postman158]

It depends on what you're going to be shooting. For landscapes, maybe a 10-22 or a 17-xx. For portraits, the 24-70 should be fine on a cropped body. Just utilize your "foot-zoom" haha.