Buying a Wide Angle

[cgipson1]

I agree with everything said above, with one caveat! I have yet to find a third party lens.. that locks into sharp AF as fast or as accurately as the OEM lenses do. I know the 3rd party lenses will focus.. and fairly fast. But I have seen more hunting, back and front focus (usually minor, but still there) with 3rd party lenses.. then I have with OEM lenses! If I need REAL precision.. I go OEM. Anyone disagree, that has actually used top end lenses from both 3rd party and OEM? Not talking about super el cheapo kit lenses.. here.. but the best of what the manufacturers offer!

 

[tevo]

I agree with everything said above, with one caveat! I have yet to find a third party lens.. that locks into sharp AF as fast or as accurately as the OEM lenses do. I know the 3rd party lenses will focus.. and fairly fast. But I have seen more hunting, back and front focus (usually minor, but still there) with 3rd party lenses.. then I have with OEM lenses! If I need REAL precision.. I go OEM. Anyone disagree, that has actually used top end lenses from both 3rd party and OEM? Not talking about super el cheapo kit lenses.. here.. but the best of what the manufacturers offer!

I second this.


Also, I would prefer to get a FX lens, because I will most likely upgrade to a full frame sooner or later.

 

[tevo]

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.

I would be shooting street,candid, just an overall walkaround. My other glass is an 80-200 2.8, and a 50 1.8.

 

[Markw]

Well, I've been shooting with my D300s for roughly 2 years now. Before that, I had the D90.

On both cameras, I've used the following:
Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm F/3.5
Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8
Nikon 18-70mm F/3.5-5.6G
Nikon 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6G
Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8D EX DC
Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8D EX DC IF HSM OS
Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 non-VC
Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8

That's about it for the "wide angle" obscure category given. For the "ultra" wide angle category (below 17mm), the Tokina definitely takes the cake. By far. It's F/2.8, built like a tank, ultra sharp, basically NO distortion. The only problem is a slight CA problem. But, it's not bad at all by any means. The Sigma 10-20s both have considerable distortion around the corners, and center alike. If you go that route, it's nice to have the F/3.5 if you need it, but the other is no slouch at all, and I never had any trouble getting focus. They're built nicely, but do feel a bit toy-like compared to the Tokina. It (the Tokina) truly is a beautiful lens, and, I think, the best value for your money with UWA DX lenses. Though, keep in mind, that Tokina just announced a version II Aspherical version of this lens, so it could be worth your time to wait. They may have fixed the CA problem.

As for the simple "wide angle" counterparts, The Sigma 17-50/2.8OS performs like a champ. Focus is spot on, fast, and silent. Optics are damn-near perfect. There's a bit of falloff on the corners wide open, but it sharpens up nicely by F/4. I currently use the 18-50/2.8D EX DC non-macro, non-HSM model, and the newer, improved 17-50/2.8OS is definitely a step up. A step and a half. It's a beautiful lens, and the OS is a great addition. The Tamron is also sharp, but has a bit of a CA problem, and is very unreliable with focusing. The 18-70 has a bit of distortion problem, but the AF is accurate, fast, and silent. The build quality is a little plasticky, but it's the same with all kit Nikkors. The 28-80 performs beautifully with a tad of distortion as well, but isn't the ideal focal range for an FX camera. The Nikon 17-55 is a Pro lens; and feels and performs as such. Everything about the lens is damn-near perfect as well. The price is well over double that of any of the lens up there, though.

As for the ones you've mentioned, the 16-35, 16-85, and 17-35 are all stellar performers. For DX, I would recommend the 16-85. It's a great focal range, and performs like a champ as well (from what I've read). The 17-35 is perfect in its own right, but is a bit of a short working range. Same goes for the 16-35. But that one's enormous.

So, my recommendation to you would be go for the Tokina 11-16/2.8 if you want super wide angles, or the Sigma 17-50/2.8OS if you are looking for a wide/short tele zoom.

Mark

 

[TheBiles]

The Sigma 8-16 is a man's wide angle.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[analog.universe]

The Sigma 8-16 is a man's wide angle.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

That's a sweet lens. I thought a long time about buying it, but decided I wanted to be able to mount an ND filter, and went for the Tokina instead. That Sigma is awesome though, the widest crop lens, super sharp, and some of the lowest distortion once you get above 10mm.

 

[Markw]

If I'm not mistaken, Sigma makes a 4.5mm lens as well. But, I'm almost positive that's a circular AND fisheye...

Mark

 

[analog.universe]

If I'm not mistaken, Sigma makes a 4.5mm lens as well. But, I'm almost positive that's a circular AND fisheye...

Mark

Totally true, I should've said "widest rectilinear crop sensor lens".

 

[tevo]

Anybody have any experience with the 17-55? I can cope with the fact that it's DX, and just sell it if I ever upgrade ( I have plenty of friends who would most likely buy it ). The focal range seems right to me for a walkaround lens. Next in line would surely be a super wide angle, like a 10-24.

Also, I would be using this (wide-angle lens) for basketball, with this in mind my original scope was a 24-70. However on a crop sensor, that didn't seem wide enough. So, 17-55 feasible for under the net basketball shots?

Bump.

 

[Markw]

I'd say the 17-55 would work fine, depending on your seat at the game. If you were sitting further back, a 7/80-200 might be in order. But, If you want both super wide, and a good range, with superb optics, build quality, and..well..everything else you may want in a lens, the 17-55 will definitely suit the bill. It's just quite a bit bigger and heavier than the other models. But, it's also a pro lens. You won't regret it if you go that route on a DX body.

Mark

 

[tevo]

I'd say the 17-55 would work fine, depending on your seat at the game. If you were sitting further back, a 7/80-200 might be in order. But, If you want both super wide, and a good range, with superb optics, build quality, and..well..everything else you may want in a lens, the 17-55 will definitely suit the bill. It's just quite a bit bigger and heavier than the other models. But, it's also a pro lens. You won't regret it if you go that route on a DX body.

Mark

Well, I work as a sports photographer, and have the appropriate press credentials allowing me to be courtside, sitting directly underneath the net. That being said, one could imagine how hard it would be getting net shots with an 80-200 on a DX body being that close (I often times have to move to one of the corners to get enough in focus to have a decent shot). This is why I love the idea of a wide angle, so that I could stand under the net and get the whole player in focus.

 

[Infinite_Day]

I'm somewhat in the same boat but with different situational settings. I'm heading to Ireland in June and am thinking about ditching the 18-105 kit lens in favor of better glass. I have the long range covered and I have a 50 and a 90 (macro) for intermediates. I have been thinking of an ultra wide like the 11-16 but in researching I also came across the 17-55 DX which looks like a nice piece of glass for travel. It would give me a good range for everything from landscape to city shots, etc. I'm not sure if I'm really going to need the extra 6mm of width that the 11-16 has to offer for lanscapes in Ireland but it's a sight cheaper. I'd have to stick with the 18-105 for a while longer, though, as my main go-to lens. Sorry to thread-jack some but figured since the queries were similar it would make more sense to jump in this discussion rather than start a new thread. Thoughts? Other options? As far as Tevo, I think that in your situation it sounds like the 17-55 would be good for courtside under the basket but it sounds like you're eventually going to want two bodies. One with a short lens and one with a tele to cover the whole court.

 

[Markw]

I'd say the 17-55 would work fine, depending on your seat at the game. If you were sitting further back, a 7/80-200 might be in order. But, If you want both super wide, and a good range, with superb optics, build quality, and..well..everything else you may want in a lens, the 17-55 will definitely suit the bill. It's just quite a bit bigger and heavier than the other models. But, it's also a pro lens. You won't regret it if you go that route on a DX body.

Mark

Well, I work as a sports photographer, and have the appropriate press credentials allowing me to be courtside, sitting directly underneath the net. That being said, one could imagine how hard it would be getting net shots with an 80-200 on a DX body being that close (I often times have to move to one of the corners to get enough in focus to have a decent shot). This is why I love the idea of a wide angle, so that I could stand under the net and get the whole player in focus.

Sigma also makes an outstanding 50-150/2.8 if that suits your fancy. It's roughly the 70-200 equivalent. But, I completely see what you mean. You won't regret the 17-55.

Mark

 

[ph0enix]

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.

I would also look at the Tokina 11-16.

 

[davidlunt]

I own the Sigma 8-16mm lens which is the widest non-fisheye lens made. If your looking for sharpness I do NOT recommend this lens. I do some real estate photography and love it for that but it's probably the softest lens I own. At $800 it's also pricey for a DX lens.