Need a wide-angle lens for my Nikon D40X

[shivaswrath]

Hey guys,
After being on here a couple of months and doing research, I decided on a D40x (and ended up getting surprised with it as my engagement present from my fiancee!)

I ended up going kitlensless since I knew I was going to upgrade to a fancy AF-S lens of some sort, but am sort of kicking myself in the ass now (well she actually decided to go without the kit lens since the body was only $580 shipped, woah prices have dropped!)

I got a Nikon 55-200mm AF-S VR lens which has treated me well so far, but after a recent trip to upper Mass for a retreat with LOTS of landscape photos, I'm feeling the itch for a wide angle.

And this is where, as a newbie, I feel restricted by budget since I can "only" get an AF-S lens compatible with the D40x I own - and don't even suggest manual, I'm having a difficult enough time getting my AF-S images focused right now!

The options I seems to have are drop $900 for a Nikkor 12-24mm with AF-S

OR

try the Sigma 10-20mm lens with HSM.

They say the sigma has "color fall off", what in god's name is that? I recognize that if I don't know what it is, I probably shouldn't worry since I"m a noob, BUT my learning curve was drastic this weekend and I figure in a couple's year time, I'll get peeved about draw backs since I'm already annoyed with some of the choices I have made. . .

 

[JerryPH]

I love my Sigma 10-20...

I've not seen any colour fall off... thats when the colour fades lightly from the edges.

But, let me try to save you a little money. Place the camera in manual, set it on one focal point, ISO, aperture. Place it on a tripod, and take several pictures from right to left or left to right overlapping a little on each pic... then try out this free little beauty of a small and super easy program:

http://autostitch.en.softonic.com/

You can even take 2 sets of panoramas... a lower and then higher one, and stitch ALL those together!

This is a fast and dirty 2-picture panorama:

BTW, congrats on the engagement!

 

[shivaswrath]

Woah, VERY nice pictures, and yeah, no fall off from what I can see!

Thanks on the congrats, here's a pic of the unfortunate future misses

and she has QUITE the talent, she took some awesome shots, including this cool one of me:

(has some noise, but still cool)

Please critique all of these too!

another landscape

i thought this one of the lifeguard overlook was cool

and a random aspen amongst oak

here's an indoor shot too, what am I doing wrong here? too much flash?

 

[JerryPH]

...here's a pic of the unfortunate future misses


here's an indoor shot too, what am I doing wrong here? too much flash?

She is a very beautifulwoman, you are a lucky man.

As for critique, I think there are better places to post your pic on the forums here, but if I may add my 2 cents (keeping in mind I am but an amateur):

- The table's colour and texture is not flattering to your subjects.

- The manner in which it is cropped is lightly distracting

- flash... is enough. Matter of fact, it is slightly too much from where it is (while on your camera). A small softbox or bounced off a white ceiling or off camera flash where the angle of the flash was higher and off to the left would have made a nicer effect

- bokeh is nice

- focus seems nice and sharp, but I believe if it was taken with a tripod, it could be better

- reflection of your main subject in the wood is a complimentary aspect.

Pretty good job.

 

[Jestev]

She is a very beautifulwoman, you are a lucky man.

As for critique, I think there are better places to post your pic on the forums here, but if I may add my 2 cents (keeping in mind I am but an amateur):

- The table's colour and texture is not flattering to your subjects.

- The manner in which it is cropped is lightly distracting

- flash... is enough. Matter of fact, it is slightly too much from where it is (while on your camera). A small softbox or bounced off a white ceiling or off camera flash where the angle of the flash was higher and off to the left would have made a nicer effect

- bokeh is nice

- focus seems nice and sharp, but I believe if it was taken with a tripod, it could be better

- reflection of your main subject in the wood is a complimentary aspect.

Pretty good job.

Jerry is right. 1/60 is a little long for a telephoto lens even with VR.

I think you try a tighter crop, and try doing some different things with the flash.

About the original post:
You definitely should try doing some wide-angle. When I was researching getting my super-wide I looked at the Sigma and Tokina 12-24. I ended up getting the Tokina because of several issues that I had heard about the Sigma. That being said, it is still an amazing lens. If you don't mind manual focusing, I'd get the Tokina 12-24. I'd assume you would rather AF, so the Sigma is the obvious choice here.

Good luck and happy shooting. Congratulations also.

 

[shivaswrath]

Thanks for the advice guys, I've been doing more research on Sigma lenses since they are "more" in my price range - $1200-1800 for a Nikon lens with some documented limitations isn't worth my $$$

I looked at the Sigma 10-20mm/12-24mm/30mm prime all with HSM, yet there are always complaints/short comings (as with ALL lenses). . .however,

I have found favorable reviews for the Sigma 17-70mm with HSM, it's about $429 on BH.

So here's a stupid question, but I have to ask:
I have a 55-200mm Nikon with VR = $219.00
I'll probably get this Sigma 17-70mm Sigma (unless some of you feel strongly against it) = $429.00
TOTAL = $648

I could instead get the Nikon 18-200mm VR II lens which, as I originally thought, was wicked expensive at $699, but the $50 jump from what I just laid out seems nominal.

Is the Nikon 18-200mm VRII THAT versatile that I can use it at home in low light situations (indoor photography), landscape photography (outdoor with good/bad light), AND indoor portraits?

Or is the Nikon 18-200mm VRII just a lazy man's lens that can do lots of different things sorta well?

 

[JerryPH]

I strongly suggest you look at the 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro. It takes great pics for the money and has a solid F/2.8 throughout the range, which makes it worth the little bit extra.

Just so that you know, there are 3 versions of the 18-50 out. The ones with the HSM and Macro are the most recent and have had stellar reviews. I almost made the same mistake and ordered the Tamron 17-50. I am very happy someone set me straight.

 

[kundalini]

Before you completely write off the Nikkor 12-24mm because of the price, here's a couple of examples.

Cost might be a factor, but if you can find the cash....

 

[shivaswrath]

I don't think I could write off the Nikkor 12-24mm, it's just that my fiancee would divorce me before our wedding in May (haha) if I spent over a grand on a lens - hell, the camera body for my D40x was only $589 or something!

The Sigma 18-50mm with HSM (that was just released) looks promising as well, especially for $499 with a f/2.8 through out, would be great for interiors. . .

So no word on your guys' take on the Nikon 18-200 VRII > a Sigma Macro + Nikon 55-200mm? (like I asked up above)

 

[shivaswrath]

Just so that you know, there are 3 versions of the 18-50 out. The ones with the HSM and Macro are the most recent and have had stellar reviews. I almost made the same mistake and ordered the Tamron 17-50. I am very happy someone set me straight.

Jerry, I noticed in some reviews that people complained about this lens being "cheap" inside - using plastic, etc. On BH, one review stated that there was a "big piece of dust" in the lens? WTH? Sigma lenses don't seal well? Have you had any problems with yours?

I'm REALLY leaning towards the latest MACRO version of the 18-50 with HSM. . .

 

[Jestev]

I don't think I could write off the Nikkor 12-24mm, it's just that my fiancee would divorce me before our wedding in May (haha) if I spent over a grand on a lens - hell, the camera body for my D40x was only $589 or something!

The Sigma 18-50mm with HSM (that was just released) looks promising as well, especially for $499 with a f/2.8 through out, would be great for interiors. . .

So no word on your guys' take on the Nikon 18-200 VRII > a Sigma Macro + Nikon 55-200mm? (like I asked up above)

Most of the time the lens you are using is worth far more than the camera body.

I would most certainly get a f/2.8 lens over the Nikkor 18-200mm. It really is a lens that can do a lot of things but not necessarily any of them really well.

 

[sabbath999]

I am going to take the complete opposite approach and recommend you get the inexpensive 18-55 kit lens used on eBay or KEH or from somebody around here. You can find them for $75ish.

They are not very fast, and not very sexy, but you can take fantastic pictures with them. They are light, sharp and extremely inexpensive.

We used one to shoot a few overall pictures at the Kansas City Zoo this weekend, and here are some un-edited, non-processed samples of what this lens can do with a regular D40, dropped into iPhoto and resized.

I don't claim these are great works of art, they just show you can take sharp pictures with this el-cheapo lens and dirt cheap DSLR.

When you outgrow the kit lens, then put it on eBay and get your $75 bucks back.

I have an 18-200 VR, my wife shoots it and loves it. Having said that, I don't have an opinion on whether that would be a better fit for you than the two lenses you mentioned.

Again, I would pick up a the current kit lens, and use it with your 55-200 until you have grown past them, and THEN consider moving up in lens.

 

[Jestev]

I am going to take the complete opposite approach and recommend you get the inexpensive 18-55 kit lens used on eBay or KEH or from somebody around here. You can find them for $75ish.

They are not very fast, and not very sexy, but you can take fantastic pictures with them. They are light, sharp and extremely inexpensive.

We used one to shoot a few overall pictures at the Kansas City Zoo this weekend, and here are some un-edited, non-processed samples of what this lens can do with a regular D40, dropped into iPhoto and resized.

I don't claim these are great works of art, they just show you can take sharp pictures with this el-cheapo lens and dirt cheap DSLR.

When you outgrow the kit lens, then put it on eBay and get your $75 bucks back.

I have an 18-200 VR, my wife shoots it and loves it. Having said that, I don't have an opinion on whether that would be a better fit for you than the two lenses you mentioned.

Again, I would pick up a the current kit lens, and use it with your 55-200 until you have grown past them, and THEN consider moving up in lens.

If the OP has the budget to get a good lens, I see no reason to buy a cheap kit lens. Most likely he won't make the money back (I doubt people will be paying $75 on eBay for a used 18-55 in a few years). If you think you're going to upgrade later, it usually makes sense to just get the nicer lens if you can afford it.

 

[Stratman]

i agree with the kit lens suggestion, i don't have a Nikon, Pentax guy here, but i love my kit lens, it is pretty sharp, and plenty wide for most situations, it's only major drawback for me is that it is slow

 

[shivaswrath]

so torn right now!
the kit lens is cheap and slow.

the sigma 18-50 HSM is f/2.8 throughout!

Not sure what to do, but thank you guys for suggestions. . .