Good wide-angle Nikkor lens?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Trenton Romulox, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. Sideburns

    Sideburns TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If you're gonna get a Macro, just get the Sigma 105 2.8 and you have a portrait lens built in. Perhaps a tad long..but still workable.


     
  2. Trenton Romulox

    Trenton Romulox TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I was looking at the Nikon 85mm PC Micro lens. It's fairly expensive, but I've heard nothing but great things, and I could use it for portraits too.
     
  3. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    24mm isn't wide on digital, 18 is the start of wide angle.
     
  4. davidtoc

    davidtoc TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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
     
  5. Helen B

    Helen B TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    468
    Location:
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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
     
  6. ranmyaku

    ranmyaku TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honolulu
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  7. jstuedle

    jstuedle No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,889
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    S.E. Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  8. Trenton Romulox

    Trenton Romulox TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  9. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    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.
     
  10. Trenton Romulox

    Trenton Romulox TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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?
     
  11. ranmyaku

    ranmyaku TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honolulu
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  12. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA


    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.
     

Share This Page