I have used Nikon SLRs for many years and am now considering going digital possibly with the D90. Over the years the majority of my pictures have been taken with a 24mm lens and I am wondering what lens I would need on the D90 that would give the same wide effect as the 24mm on a film camera. Del.
Hi and welcome to TPF. A 16mm on the D90 will give you the same filed of view as a 24mm on a 35mm film camera. If you want to understand why, search this forum for 'crop factor' (or use Google).
the AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8D ED would probably be the closest thing from Nikon. it would give you the field of view of a 21mm. however, that would be a huge waste of money on a DX body. unfortunately the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED would probably be your best option on a DX body.
Just curious... I am wondering why you say this? The 14mm is available for $1200... the 14-24 is available for $1600 and it is NOT a prime. Why would you say that the 14mm is a "huge waste of money" since it is less expensive than what you suggested and will not give as nice final results as a prime lens? Personally, I think that if the person is an experienced shooter and knows that they want a top quality prime, this is the way to go... but if they are using a lower end dSLR and/or are a beginner and/or do not have the budget, neither one is the way to go, and I would suggest something more reasonable, like a 10-20mm Sigma at 1/3rd the price (or less) of either of the 2 lenses suggested.
I was going to throw a Sigma 10-22mm into the choice as well. The Nikon crop sensor cameras have a crop factor of x1.5. So the 10-22 focal range would be equivalent to 15-33mm on a D90, of which the 16mm would be smack on the 24mm you are seeking.
not a waste of money in general.... it's an amazing lens and well worth the money. but the same argument goes for the 14mm prime and the 14-24mm that you are paying a premium for the edge to edge sharpness that you wouldn't even be using on a DX. however, you make a good point (if i understood you correctly) that in the right hands it very well could be the best choice no matter what body you're using.
I agree with Jerry! It is never a waste of money in my book when it is spent on good glass. ANd that Sigma lens is a good one too.
Del, in your case it is probably worth going straight for FX (full frame). Is money as issue? What/how do you usually shoot?
Which camera body do you normally shoot with? Since you shoot ultra-wide, if you were to go digital you really do need to go full-frame, and the cheapest I've seen for the cheapest full-frame Nikon camera, a used D700, is somewhere around $2000 and is $2700 new. It would be much easier and cheaper to treat yourself to a nice camera like the F5 ($350-$450 used) or the Nikon F100 ($250-$300 used) if you've been shooting consumer Nikon SLR's like the N65, and spend the rest on some really nice glass - so of course, it depends on what your budget is. Which of course Jerry, is the point - he can spend $1,000+ on the D90 and $1,600 on a lens that he would buy specifically because he's buying a DX camera, or he could buy a better camera, the D700, for $2700 new, less if you buy off eBay, and use the perfectly good glass he already has. Or, he can save a couple suitcases full of money by sticking with film. Do the math.
Sticking with film... as much as this is going to hurt film shooters... that is a dead horse. No one is developing new advancements for film cameras and less and less places are even processing and developing film. The die-hards are still using it, and good for them, for preserving the past, but in today's digital society, it is foolish to think that you can learn faster and better or as easily do photography as with digital. Developing costs and prints/CDs cost money too... and if you are like me... even time is money. For me, film would come out more expensive than digital. If I were a film only buff, with 2 years experience, I still would be learning the basics due to time constraints. I'd also be in the poor house becuase of the developing costs and up to my ears in prints... lol You may say film is cheaper... I disagree. It would be if you take 500-1000 pictures a year on an old film dSLR, but I do triplr that on an average week, and then there are the obvious advantages such as being able to see your results NOW, not needing to send the roll off to a lab, pray that they don't screw up your roll and wait days to learn if how you were shooting was good or not. With respect to film shooters... film is pretty much a thing of the past and dying out more each day.
Thanks Jerry, but this has nothing to do with the original post and looks like you are trying to start yet another film vs digital debate. I thought that with so many posts under your belt you would know how these end and that they are actually forbidden by the rules of the forum.
Hardly Steph it looks like a direct reply to blash's post. Although Blash is right if the 24mm lens is already in the OP's possession it may make more sense to jump straight for a D700, since the DX option will incur a $1300 premium on the body.
