Cheap wide angle for Nikon D40?

AnthonyCorbo · Dec 5, 2008

Does anyone know of a fairly cheap wide angle lens that takes nice photos? doesnt have to autofocus, but if there is a afs wide angle also let me know.:thumbup:

ANDS! · Dec 5, 2008

How cheap?

AnthonyCorbo · Dec 5, 2008

Umm i dont got a job yet :lol:

ANDS! · Dec 5, 2008

Ok. Different tactic.

"What do you want to spend."

Because the kit lens you have for the D40 is "wide" at the 18MM. If you want to drop down to 12MM, then your options are the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and Nikkor 12-24 DX. Of course the Nikkor is immediately out of the question, which leaves the Tokina and the Sigma which retail for 500 and 400 respectively.

I have the Tokina and it is pretty awesomesauce. Never tried the Sigma (or the Sigma 12-24), however the advantage of those two over the Tokina is the Sigma will autofocus and the Tokina will not. But if thats not a problem, I would go for the Tokina - or just keep the 18-55 that you got.

AnthonyCorbo · Dec 5, 2008

what about a AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8 D?

ANDS! · Dec 5, 2008

The 50MM is not a wide angle lens, no matter what anyone tells you about "walking backwards". That's not to say it cant capture someone and appear "wide", but traditionally speaking, its not considered "wide".

AnthonyCorbo · Dec 5, 2008

Too bad i like that price(135$)

ANDS! · Dec 5, 2008

Well how about this. What do you want to use the wideangle lens for?

kundalini · Dec 5, 2008

I always shudder a little bit whenever I see "cheap" in the title of a thread. This is not an inexpensive hobby and cheap usually results in cheap results. That's not to say to search for the best bang for the buck at all. But let's be honest, when you're asking about lenses and wanting the quality that everyone wants and dreams of those wonderful images, then you should figure in terms of multiple hundreds, and into the four digits.

If you want a WA and already have a lens that is at 18mm and you "don't got no job", then you should really consider your priorities. Wait until the time is right, when you have been able to save up for that lens that will give the results you envision...... not one that will do. Your 18-55mm can produce some really nice images. Learn how to work it.

*steps off soap box*

ccssk8ter11 · Dec 5, 2008

i got a sigma 10-20 mm, works awesome! and its super wide, its only about 479? i think.

ccssk8ter11 · Dec 5, 2008

oh and it does autofocus.

ANDS! · Dec 5, 2008

kundalini said:
I always shudder a little bit whenever I see "cheap" in the title of a thread. This is not an inexpensive hobby and cheap usually results in cheap results. That's not to say to search for the best bang for the buck at all. But let's be honest, when you're asking about lenses and wanting the quality that everyone wants and dreams of those wonderful images, then you should figure in terms of multiple hundreds, and into the four digits.

If you want a WA and already have a lens that is at 18mm and you "don't got no job", then you should really consider your priorities. Wait until the time is right, when you have been able to save up for that lens that will give the results you envision...... not one that will do. Your 18-55mm can produce some really nice images. Learn how to work it.

*steps off soap box*

While I agree that this hobby costs, I would never pay four digits for anything other than a camera body. Professional lenses are just that - geared towards pros who will recoup their losses through work. If one has disposable cash, by all means go for it. However, neither Canon nor Nikon make a lens (in my opinion) that does not have an appreciable duplicate in either Sigma, Tokina or Tamrons arsenal. Some will swear by the difference in IQ, but for the majority of hobbyists who aren't pixel peeping, the 3rd Party Goers produce excellent quality lenses.

Now if you are talking about COMBINED costs (and not a single four digit pro lens) - well **** yea I agree, expect to spend in excess of a thousand bucks. . .

kundalini · Dec 5, 2008

ANDS!... I wish you'd use you old avatar again, I used to be nervous to respond to your posts and would $hit myself if posted in one of my threads. :lol:

I guess what I'm saying is... for instance, I'll use myself as an example.... I wanted to get into this digital game for ~$600 for a body, a lens or two, and some of the peripherials. Well, in turned into $1K... so be it. Then I had desires for certain lenses, ancilliraries and such. Then I bought my first "pro" glass. Phuque me... I was hooked and my financial contribution to this hobby has grown exponentially. My insurance coverage scares me.

However..... and that is a big However.... I am fortunate enough to have the disposable income to fund my wild desires (with this hobby..... the others is another story). But I never, let me repeat that.. NEVER did I purchase something with this hobby that would interfere with my standard obligations and could not pay off within the next billing cycle. What I see so often is someone wanting Galen Rowland type results on a Gomer Pyle income (not to be confused with IQ). The two are chalk and cheese, oil and water, me and my first wife.... the two just don't mix.

All that garbage above is to say that newbies excited with the possibilites of this art form should stay within their means and take care of business first and foremost.