Buying a Wide Angle

[tevo]

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.

Ditch the 18-105, make a quick 200 bucks. I think I'll end up getting the 17-55, and then a wider lens after that. Ill let you know how I like it!

 

[TheBiles]

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.

$800? I got mine for $650, and it's been plenty sharp. It's important to focus near the hyperfocal distance and stop down a bit for optimal performance.

 

[Snaps]

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.

In which case a moderate wide angle of arond 35mm equivalent would be my choice. And a faster prime would be better than a zoom. It's just personal choice

 

[BZSPhotography]

16-35 :thumbup:

 

[tevo]

Vote:

Nikon 17-55 2.8 (DX)

or

Nikon 17-35 2.8

 

[blahh646260]

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.

 

[480sparky]

Personally don't think anyone should be taking your advice on lenses. And that's just by looking over the list of lenses you've used. Id bet it safe to say you've wasted a lot of money over the years buying different lenses that are basically the same as at least one other in your bag or even multiple! No point in having 3-5 lenses that darn near cover the exact same focal length

God forbid anyone who wants to spend money on different lenses so they can test them out first-hand. What a silly notion.... we should all just trust the manufacturers.

 

[tevo]

Personally don't think anyone should be taking your advice on lenses. And that's just by looking over the list of lenses you've used. Id bet it safe to say you've wasted a lot of money over the years buying different lenses that are basically the same as at least one other in your bag or even multiple! No point in having 3-5 lenses that darn near cover the exact same focal length

God forbid anyone who wants to spend money on different lenses so they can test them out first-hand. What a silly notion.... we should all just trust the manufacturers.

Grand leader Nikon tell me to buy honorable 18-200

 

[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

Personally don't think anyone should be taking your advice on lenses. And that's just by looking over the list of lenses you've used. Id bet it safe to say you've wasted a lot of money over the years buying different lenses that are basically the same as at least one other in your bag or even multiple! No point in having 3-5 lenses that darn near cover the exact same focal length

I never said I've owned all the lenses. I said I've used them. Either I rented them at one time or another, or used a friends' lens. I have owned 5 of them, if I count correctly, however. The Nikkor 18-70 I purchased for $60. Who in their right mind would have passed the lens up for $60? That came with my 18-50/2.8D Sigma, for an additional $70. Now, both the lenses were in pristine condition. I spent $130 for roughly $500 worth of lenses, and sold the 18-70 for more than the cost of both of them. Shortly, I'll be selling the 18-50/2.8D for quadruple the price I've paid for it. So, to sum up, on my wide zooms, I came out on top +$340.

As for the ultra wides, I originally tested the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. It was a brilliant lens, but I wanted the constant aperture, so, when I sent that back, I purchased the F/3.5 (at this point, only costing me $300). Tokina released the 11-16, and I saw what a magnificent lens it was. So, I purchased that and sold my relatively new Sigma for $580. Back on top $280. Purchased the Tokina for $600 at the time the prices were sky-rocketing up everywhere. So, you're right. Maybe I wasted a total of $320 for $1740 worth of lenses. Yeah, maybe you'd call that wasting alot of money, but I certainly don't. As for the other lenses, if I had to factor those in..OH! Wait! I got my 28-80 when I purchased my N65 (the bundle, both in box with all papers for $35. Subtract half for the cost of the camera and the lens cost $17). So, I owned that one too. And it was spectacular. Add the $80 to the top for what I sold that lens for, and I now spent $260 for almost $2k worth of lenses. But, you should probably subtract that $80 back out for me stupidly renting one or two of the lenses.

Mark

 

[tevo]

I was recommended the Tokina 11-16 elsewhere for a superwide, will most likely be the next lens I get after my 17-55.

 

[cgipson1]

I was recommended the Tokina 11-16 elsewhere for a superwide, will most likely be the next lens I get after my 17-55.

Really? Gee. Thanks.. Tevo!

 

[tevo]

I was recommended the Tokina 11-16 elsewhere for a superwide, will most likely be the next lens I get after my 17-55.

Really? Gee. Thanks.. Tevo!

This was assuming that you had already sold your 10-24. I will still buy that if I can, although some *** hole mother****er stole my 18-105 at a basketball game last night, so I will have to get funds some other way. Did you get my PM?

 

[cgipson1]

I haven't sold the lens.. I was holding it for you, and turning down other buyers...

It's no big deal, really!

I did post it finally.. after reading your post above.... I haven't read your PM yet... will do that next!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-f-3-5-4-5g-ed-af-s-dx-lens.html#post2495692

 

[tevo]

I haven't sold the lens.. I was holding it for you, and turning down other buyers...

It's no big deal, really!

I did post it finally.. after reading your post above.... I haven't read your PM yet... will that next!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-f-3-5-4-5g-ed-af-s-dx-lens.html#post2495692

My apologies, my financing options for such an item are fairly specific... for tax-evadey reasons.

 

[cgipson1]

I haven't sold the lens.. I was holding it for you, and turning down other buyers...

It's no big deal, really!

I did post it finally.. after reading your post above.... I haven't read your PM yet... will that next!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-f-3-5-4-5g-ed-af-s-dx-lens.html#post2495692

My apologies, my financing options for such an item are fairly specific... for tax-evadey reasons.

No problem.. I told you I would hold it for you... unless you changed your mind. You never made any firm promises... nothing on paper! It was just that after reading your post above... I was kind of shocked! So I listed it. If you would like me to withdraw the For Sale listing, and hold it for you.. I will! Just let me know!