Decent Wide Angle for D200

[BrianLy]

What is a good decent wide angle for me to get for my D200 coming? No more then $600.

 

[orb9220]

Most favored is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 followed by the popular Sigma 10-20 for around $479 new. Also to consider is the Tokina 12-24 f4 for $399 at B&H. There are other's but have no experience with them.

And a great source for info is to get a free flickr account and join a bunch of Nikon and lens specific groups. As you can post specific questions to owners of specific equipment groups like the Sigma 10-20 group and get their take on it and review the images in the group pool.

I myself in the used market for an UWA for my D200. Have only $300 saved so far but hope to snag one on craigslist for that.
.

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

If you want to go wide. I also say the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I have had mine over a year now. Very happy with it to date. Not a single issue with it or complaint.

 

[BrianLy]

I have heard a lot of good feedbacks with the Tokina 11-16.

 

[BrianLy]

I am kind of new to this but what are the benefits for me to get the f2.8 compare to the f4.0?

 

[jjparson]

The benefit is you get an extra couple stops of light. I have never considered a "fast" lens, (large aperture) to be that critical when shooting with an UWA because I am usually using a tripod and shutter speed is not a serious issue at that point. The other reason I never considered it was because I rarely have the desire to shoot at a large aperture when shooting landscapes. I am typically trying to shoot at a smallish aperture so I can have as much of the frame as possible in focus. By the way, I have the sigma 10-20 and really like the option it gives me in shooting landscapes.

 

[Tasmaster]

Another benefit is the shallower depth of field that you will get with a 2.8, although this too is less prominent on a (ultra)wide angle lens... unless you want to think outside the box and get creative

PS: while is the nifty fifty on your wishlist? Just get one now!



edit - reached 300 posts?? This is madness!

 

[Markw]

I own the Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6. I would trade it in a new york second for the 11-16mm Tokina. The sigma works wonders for landscapes, but it is miserable for inside work if your camera cannot handle high ISOs. I would kill for the F/2.8. It also has fairly miserable distortion outside of the center..Id say..15% of the frame. Forget it if youre shooting anything with a face or straight lines and want to fill the frame at all. I hear this is almost completely eliminated with the Tokina. Something I would pay double the price for if need be. I am currently in the market for one of the Tokinas, but I need to get rid of the Sigma first.

That being said, sont get me wrong. The Sigma is an extremely capable piece of glass. It handles its own very well..you just have to know the lens' limitations. Ive shot many photos with it, some very successful. Most have to have the corners cropped out because of distortion, however. You just have to know what youre getting yourself into.

Mark

 

[Markw]

Not that this shows much, but these were all taken with the Sigma 10-20mm.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/dark-side-gallery/216238-abandonment.html

Mark

 

[Patrice]

The benefit is you get an extra couple stops of light.

f2.8 to f4.0 is one stop - not two.

 

[Markw]

Whatever the case, it makes a huge difference.

Mark

 

[Patrice]

Whatever the case, it makes a huge difference.

Mark

Agree, 100% more light.

 

[BrianLy]

For my wide angle I am going to be using it with tripod 90% of the time.

 

[Markw]

Tokina 11-16 2.8 is the best glass for wide angle, hands down. It may not have all the focal lengths you might want, but for picture quality, lack of distortion, and price, you cant get any better.

Mark

 

[djacobox372]

I am kind of new to this but what are the benefits for me to get the f2.8 compare to the f4.0?

With an ultrawide... not much. Your hand-held shutter speeds can be as low as 1/10 of a second at 10mm, so speed isn't that important, and your DOF is never going to be very narrow at ultrawide angles.

The 4-5.6 sigma is really sharp wide open, my "guess" is that the same isn't true of the f2.8 (I haven't tested, just that I've never used a sigma that was sharp at 2.8, so I'm being prejudice here)... you'll likely end up stopping down to f4 anyway.