I need a good nikon Wide angle zoom. Suggestions?

Hooligan Dan · Mar 31, 2008

So, I got my D300 a couple weeks ago and I'm trying to weed out all the crappy equipment I was using with my D100. A new wide angle is next on my list. Now, I don't want to be spending 1500 bones on a lens, but I don't want a cheap lens plagued by soft focus, flares, and chromatic aberrations. I've searched around, looking everywhere I can think of, but I just can't find what I'm looking for. Somewhere in the 16mm range on the lower end of the zoom, but no more than 18 on the low end. High end; 50mm or less. And f2.8 throughout the range at the minimum.

It doesn't even have to be nikon. Sigma will be fine as long as the aforementioned problems aren't an issue with the off-brand lens.

So, what do you guys have?

And thanks for the help.

Trenton Romulox · Mar 31, 2008

Well, if you plan on sticking with DX, the Nikon 12-24 f/4 is a great wide-angle zoom. But, since you said f/2.8, that might not be a good fit.

I personally use the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. Which I love. A lot. It's sharp, sharp, sharp. The sharpest wide-angle zoom out there as far as I know, and have heard. But, it doesn't take filters, which is a bit of a downer. But, I've seen people that have made their own filter holders for it, if you ever wanted to do that, I'm sure you could. But, I mean, the 14-24 is really as sharp as they come at that focal length. I love mine.

I've heard good stuff about a Sigma 10-20mm, I believe it was a Sigma at least. A lot of people on here seem to use that for Nikon, or Canon, or whatever.

Hope this helped somewhat, Hooligan Dan.

JimmyO · Mar 31, 2008

The sigma 10-20 is a great lens. I really enjoy it.

Hooligan Dan · Mar 31, 2008

Trenton Romulox said:
Well, if you plan on sticking with DX, the Nikon 12-24 f/4 is a great wide-angle zoom. But, since you said f/2.8, that might not be a good fit.

I personally use the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. Which I love. A lot. It's sharp, sharp, sharp. The sharpest wide-angle zoom out there as far as I know, and have heard. But, it doesn't take filters, which is a bit of a downer. But, I've seen people that have made their own filter holders for it, if you ever wanted to do that, I'm sure you could. But, I mean, the 14-24 is really as sharp as they come at that focal length. I love mine.

I've heard good stuff about a Sigma 10-20mm, I believe it was a Sigma at least. A lot of people on here seem to use that for Nikon, or Canon, or whatever.

Hope this helped somewhat, Hooligan Dan.

That's the lens you used on the snowy landscape if my memory serves me right. I'll check it out. The filter issue is a bit of a bummer, but I'm sure there's some way around it. Thanks.

Trenton Romulox · Mar 31, 2008

Hooligan Dan said:
That's the lens you used on the snowy landscape if my memory serves me right. I'll check it out. The filter issue is a bit of a bummer, but I'm sure there's some way around it. Thanks.

Correct. The very lens. It's an awesome lens.

Lyncca · Mar 31, 2008

I just recently purchased the Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 PRO DX. It got really great reviews and so far I am really impressed with the quality as well. It also only costs half as much as the Nikon version. This is my first non-Nikon lens but went ahead when many of the reviewers rated it higher than the Nikon version...

*Edit, sorry, I forgot you wanted a 2.8, so this may not work for you, but I wanted to leave the post so that you may be able to look if interested.

Trenton Romulox · Mar 31, 2008

I think the biggest appeal of the Nikon 14-24 that I love so dearly is that it's got such little distortion. I mean, it's got the normal distortion that you'd get at 14mm, I mean, that's impossible to avoid, but that's the main draw of that focal length. But at the longer lengths, like 18 or 24mm, the lens has great, great control of distortion, and has no falloff, like, at all. It's an amazing optical performer, state of the art, really.

Sw1tchFX · Apr 1, 2008

the sigma 10-20 gives an equivalent field of view to a 15-30ism mm. That's almost the 14-24 on 35mm.

for DX, the sigma is a wiser choice IMO, and can take normal filters, and is only $500, and should hold its value reasonably well considering it's off-brand.

JIP · Apr 1, 2008

I think you have this all backwards you should have hought of his when buying your body. You might have been better off buying a cheaper body and gone for the "1500 bones lens".

Hooligan Dan · Apr 1, 2008

JIP said:
I think you have this all backwards you should have hought of his when buying your body. You might have been better off buying a cheaper body and gone for the "1500 bones lens".

The reason I don't want to drop 1500 on a wide angle is because the 70-200 is my workhorse. So I spent the money there. I only use a wide angle about 25% of the time. I see no reason to waste the money of a top of the line one when it will go to waste. I'd keep using my cheap nikkor one if it went down to 2.8, but it doesn't, which makes shooting in low light places like gyms or at city council meetings rather annoying.

Antithesis · Apr 3, 2008

Tokina is about to release an 11-16 f2.8, that supposedly has phenomenal image quality and will cost around $700. I use the Tokina 12-24, which I think is a wonderful lens, but it has it's problems (such as severe CA and occasional flare). Ken Rockwell has a review of the new Tokina, but he is biased as can be. I'd just wait until we see more reviews of it, it sounds like it might be a perfect match. Oh, and keep in mind you can hand-hold a wide-angle down to some really low shutter speeds. I've held mine down below an 8th of a second and gotten sharp pictures, plus with the high ISO capabilities of the d300 it seems like an f4 might save you some money.

shivaswrath · Apr 5, 2008

the tokina is fine and good if you have a D70+ Nikon, for those saving in the interim, it's out of the question, and leaves only the 12-24 and 14-24 in the equation. . .since the 12-24 is selling for nearly $1k, spending an extra $600 might be worth it for the f/2.8 if that's what you need. . .

shivaswrath · May 19, 2008

some recent shots with the 14-24 on my D40x, un edited or processed just yet, since i just got back from France (shots of Notre dame, Musee D'Orsay, Louvre, etc. . .)