Nikon 20mm f1.8 or Tamron 15-30mm F2.8?

[N1kon1k]

Hey Derrel been looking at the 16-35 mm f4 and I'm pretty impressed with it... just found it used for $830 with what they consider "moderate wear" it's B&H 8+ rating ...

I never bought anything used, simply because I'm really anal and paranoid with my stuff, I like my stuff to be in tip top shape...

Should I take a gamble on it or just buy new and spend the extra $270 for peace of mind?

Is B&H usually really good with their ratings?

I changed my mind to this one you suggested because, with this lens I can use all my lee filters

 

[Derrel]

B&H has good, honest ratings on their used gear. I suggested this lens because it is a NEW optical design, for high-resolution NIkon digitals, and it takes filters, AND it is not honking-big AND it has that nice 35mm lens length, which I LIKE for landscapes and people work.

 

[N1kon1k]

B&H has good, honest ratings on their used gear. I suggested this lens because it is a NEW optical design, for high-resolution NIkon digitals, and it takes filters, AND it is not honking-big AND it has that nice 35mm lens length, which I LIKE for landscapes and people work.

As always thank you for the guidance... will do... I'll post s pic welcoming it to the new family

 

[jsecordphoto]

Few things-

Depending on what you're doing with your images, the coma might not matter as much in your Astro images with the 20. I shoot with large prints in mind, so coma is a deal breaker for me. If you're mostly sharing online, when scaled down the coma isn't as noticeable. For example, last weekend I shot a Astro image in a pretty iconic location here in New England, only to realize my 15-30 is decentered (dropped it recently being repaired now). Viewing at 100% in Lightroom, the stars looked pretty bad and I would never consider selling prints- but scaled down to 1500 pixels for sharing online, it looked great.

Regarding using a CPL on such a wide lens- I use one often, but I consider the limitations. When shooting on the coast, or with waterfalls, I always use one of my 15-30. I won't use it on a shot with lots of sky in the frame, and I'm mindful along the coast to make sure I'm reducing glare on wet rocks, but not getting an uneven effect on the sky.

I ended up with the Vu Filters set up for my 15-30, but there are lots of options out there, including Lee.

And yes, in some cases you can stitch with the 20mm to get the same field of view as 15mm. But if you have anything really close in your foreground, then you end up needing extra panorama gear for your tripod to avoid parrelax error. Sometimes I want to put something very close in my foreground to get an exaggerated perspective, which would be a total pain to stitch.

 

[nerwin]

I like my 16-35 f/4 VR. Its lighter than the 15-30 and you can use filters. Also, I find it to be very comfortable to handle, the 15-30 is a pretty chunky lens but nonetheless, it has top end optics not the say the 16-35 is awful, it's no slouch either. But the 15-30 has the edge, special center to edge sharpness.

I haven't tried milky way shots with it, just a bit slow at f/4 but where I live there is little to no light pollution so I can probably get away with it.

I know other photographers that have the 16-35 f/4 and they have a Samyang 24 1.4 or the 14 2.8 for milky way shots so that might be something to consider as well.

 

[N1kon1k]

Thanks guys much appreciated... the more I look the more confused I get lol... I really want the 15-30 but I'm having a hard time justifying buying it and than have to buy a whole new setup and all new filters... I think for now I'm going to stick with the 16-35 F4 and if I end up selling prints I'll save that money and than buy the 15-30....

No matter what I'm sure either one will outshine my 24-120mm... although a great lens I must say... pretty sharp too

 

[jake337]

Not even the sigma 20mm f1.4 art?

 

[jake337]

Sigma 20mm f1.4 art.

Want sharp wide open?

100% crop

 

[jake337]

Thanks a bunch Derrel.... only reason why I'm considering the 20mm it's because I just recently invested on the lee filters (100x100) and if I go with the 15-30 I won't be able to use any filters plus polarizer etc... (well not without having to invest in brand new 150x150 filter holder)

Since I only plan on trying to play around with milky way shots even though I know the 20 doesn't have coma correction...

Can't I stitch shots to get the feel of a 15mm shot?

Only for milky way?

Save a bunch of money and get the samyang 14 2.8 or get the 14 2.8 and the 24mm 1.4.

****, you could probably get the 14 2.8, 24 1.4 and the 35 1.4 under 900 bucks and have s milky way field day!

 

[jsecordphoto]

The sigma 20 art has fairly bad coma wide open, need to stop down to 2.8 anyway to clear most of that up.

The rokinon/samyang option is good if you feel like dealing with quality control issues, and the 14 has distortion that I absolutely hate, plus a few stops of vignetting wide open...

 

[N1kon1k]

I just looked up the lens and yes a few people seem to say the same issues with vignette and distortion... I'm sure some things can be corrected in post... but for now the Tamron and the Nikon are leading in my decision... still debating on which one because even the 16-35 F4 has some vignette and bad distortion it seems...

 

[jsecordphoto]

Vignetting isn't as big of a deal if you're shooting during the day, and shooting at a lower ISO. A few stops of vignetting when you're shooting in the pitch black at iso3200+ means you have to push exposure in post and that can introduce some problems