Good wide-angle Nikkor lens?

[davidtoc]

Sw1tchFX is right; 24mm is not wide angle on a DX camera. You're going to have go ultrawide just to get a "normal" wide-angle.

The 12-24 f4 is not your only wide angle zoom option. You also have the 14-24 f2.8. However, they're both outside your $500 price limit. the 12-24 is $900 and the 14-24 is $1800. The 14mm f2.8 prime is $1400. So you don't have a lot of wide angle nikkor options. Maybe the 10.5mm fisheye for $600, depending on how you want to use it. All 4 are unbeatable lenses in their respective classes; they're just more expensive than the off-brand lenses. My personal philosophy (and I have very little pocket change floating around as a result, I must add) is that one of the main reasons I bought a nikon camera is so that I could use nikon lenses. It'd be better to get a cheaper body (which you're going to have to replace in a few years anyway) and put more $$ toward better lenses. That being said, you already have your D300 (and i'm a little jealous, btw), so you might just want to hold off for a while on a wide-angle and focus (no pun intended) on the lenses that are most important to you. Better to have a few great lenses than a lot of mediocre ones.

But coninuing on the wide-angle thread, outside of nikon, your best choice by a fair margin, for price and quality is going to be the Tokina 12-24 f4 dx, which can be had for under $500. Check the reviews, and compare it to it's competitors (the sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 11-18), but if u don't want to shell out for the nikkor, i'd get the tokina.

If you want to focus on macro and portraits, though, buy those first and get the best ones you can before you get a wide-angle. Wide-angle is one of those nice-to-have lenses for me, but i still consider it too much of a special-application lens for the kind of photography i do. I love my nikkor 200mm macro, and i'd be kicking myself if I spent over $1000 bucks on a wide-angle only to find out i had to compromise on a portrait or macro lens as a result.

dave

 

[Helen B]

A 35 mm lens on full-frame (ie about 24 mm on a DX) is considered the start of 'wide angle' by many - but it isn't something that you can make rules about. Trenton already has a lens that includes 24 mm, so he is probably aware of how wide it is, and the designation is immaterial, surely?

Best,
Helen

 

[ranmyaku]

I'll be getting my nikkor 12-24 f/4 in a day or so from B&H. I'll let you know what I think once I get it.

I decided to go for it over the tokina, basically b/c I had the extra money available. I spent about a month trying to figure out what to buy. The Tokina was definitely in the picture, since it is optically nearly equivalent to the Nikkor.

The only way you can tell what lenses to get is to ask yourself, what are the things i like to take pictures of. Once you answer that question, find the best lens in that class and buy it. You won't regret buying expensive glass. If you can't afford the one you really want right now, then just wait.

After going through these things in my head and then reading everything I could online. I ended up getting the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED and the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED. Both which suite my needs for lenses. The next thing I will consider is upgrading to the pro level lens in the mid zoom area. Probably the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mmf/2.8G ED.

I've only had the 105mm Micro-Nikkor for about 2 weeks and I love it. Produces excellent macro shots with great color, contrast, and sharpness. It is also great for portrait stuff, though maybe a little long for some. Since portrait is one of the least likely things I am going to do with it, this was fine with me. But its nice to have the option if I want.

 

[jstuedle]

24mm isn't wide on digital, 18 is the start of wide angle.

A 35 mm lens on full-frame (ie about 24 mm on a DX) is considered the start of 'wide angle' by many - but it isn't something that you can make rules about.

Very true, there are no hard and fast rules about where "real" or "true" wide angle starts or ends. From the time I started shooting in '65, until around 1977 the widest lens I ever owned was a 35mm. Today we are spoiled and think the extreme is the norm. I do now own a 14, but is it a "just gotta have it" lens, no. It may be used 1/2 or 1% of the time and half of those shots are just to use it so I don't feel guilty buying it. I use a 20 prime or the 24 end of a 24-120 zoom much more. I would think most shooters find themselves in the same boat. A friend who shoots landscapes 99% of the time owns the 12-24 DX and shoots it almost always at 24. I personally am glad I stayed with non-DX glass. So Trenton, if your plans include a FF camera in the future, you might think about that before a DX purchase, JMO. You know, the 300 will meter MF glass, and there is a lot of great Nikkor MF stuff out there. Landscape work seldom requires AF, so you might want to give them a look.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Very true, there are no hard and fast rules about where "real" or "true" wide angle starts or ends. From the time I started shooting in '65, until around 1977 the widest lens I ever owned was a 35mm. Today we are spoiled and think the extreme is the norm. I do now own a 14, but is it a "just gotta have it" lens, no. It may be used 1/2 or 1% of the time and half of those shots are just to use it so I don't feel guilty buying it. I use a 20 prime or the 24 end of a 24-120 zoom much more. I would think most shooters find themselves in the same boat. A friend who shoots landscapes 99% of the time owns the 12-24 DX and shoots it almost always at 24. I personally am glad I stayed with non-DX glass. So Trenton, if your plans include a FF camera in the future, you might think about that before a DX purchase, JMO. You know, the 300 will meter MF glass, and there is a lot of great Nikkor MF stuff out there. Landscape work seldom requires AF, so you might want to give them a look.

I actually plan on buying NO DX glass at all, because I do plan on going full-frame in the future. Either my next camera, or the one after that, will be in the Nikon Professional range (where the D3 is now) and I don't see them ditching full-frame in the professional line after they just got it, right? So yeah, I'm trying to shy away from DX lenses, the only one I have is the kit lens that came with my D80 earlier this year (18-135).

Thanks for the replies everyone.

 

[JIP]

Honestly, not to be a jerk here but if you can only afford $500 for glass don't you think you have too much camera. I think mabye you could have saved a little money with something like a D80 and been able to afford some better glass. You seem to understand that glass is the better long term investment but you would have done better considring that when you bought your body wich I am asuming was not so long ago since it was a D300. I do agree the 17-55 2.8 is probably the lens for you right now since you are definately considering going full-frame in the future. If you would onsider a DX lens you night think about the 17-55 2.8.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Honestly, not to be a jerk here but if you can only afford $500 for glass don't you think you have too much camera. I think mabye you could have saved a little money with something like a D80 and been able to afford some better glass. You seem to understand that glass is the better long term investment but you would have done better considring that when you bought your body wich I am asuming was not so long ago since it was a D300. I do agree the 17-55 2.8 is probably the lens for you right now since you are definately considering going full-frame in the future. If you would onsider a DX lens you night think about the 17-55 2.8.

Or maybe it's that I don't shoot landscapes very often and plan on spending $3000 on a 70-200mm VR and 85mm Micro PC, so why spend a lot on a lens I'd only use from time to time?

Edit: I only mostly shoot macro, sports, and portraits, so I figured, why spend a lot of money on a wide-angle? Right?

 

[ranmyaku]

If you rarely shoot landscape or architecture or the like. I wouldn't buy a wide angle. Just spend all your money on the telephoto/macro lenses. And have a good middle range zoom. If you rarely do landscape stuff then you can easily shoot that at 17 to 20mm, which will be at your disposal without the dedicated wide angle lens.

 

[JIP]

Or maybe it's that I don't shoot landscapes very often and plan on spending $3000 on a 70-200mm VR and 85mm Micro PC, so why spend a lot on a lens I'd only use from time to time?

Edit: I only mostly shoot macro, sports, and portraits, so I figured, why spend a lot of money on a wide-angle? Right?

Not right as I said your lenses are the best investment. As you seem to know by saying you intend to buy a full-frame body bodies come and go while the right lenses can last you throuought all formats and technologies. And while I know your style is yours so if you only want to shoot protraits and sports from a distance that is fine but why not supplement your very nice body with the same quality lenses. And by the way a 17-55 or a 17-35 is not just for landscape portraits.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Not right as I said your lenses are the best investment. As you seem to know by saying you intend to buy a full-frame body bodies come and go while the right lenses can last you throuought all formats and technologies. And while I know your style is yours so if you only want to shoot protraits and sports from a distance that is fine but why not supplement your very nice body with the same quality lenses. And by the way a 17-55 or a 17-35 is not just for landscape portraits.

It's not that I can't afford a nice wide-angle lens, I can, I just don't necessarily want to buy a really nice one at the moment. So, maybe I should just stick with the lenses I have until I run into a greater need for a wide-angle lens, and then just go all out for one then?

 

[JIP]

That's the best idea I heard all day.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

That's the best idea I heard all day.

Good. I'm glad you think so.