Should I purchase a Nikkor 10-24mm or something else?!

[bkristopher]

I have a D90 with the kit 18-105mm and a 50mm f/1.4. I am thinking about purchasing a Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. I like to shoot landscape/nature, but I am interested in attempting more people/portraiture.

My question is will I get a valuable benefit from the 10-24mm over the 18mm I already own? Or is there another Nikkor lens sub $1,000 I would benefit from? Maybe the Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 ED?

As you can see I am all over the map.

 

[Felix 222]

check out the tokina 11-16 2.8 if you want a wide angle.

 

[bkristopher]

Price is affordable, but I am hesitant to leave the Nikon family. The real underlying question is will there be an obvious advantage having the 10-17mm under my 18-105mm?

I was thinking about just renting the 10-24 Nikkor lens to test it out.

 

[480sparky45 44]

I have only one word for the Nikkor 10-24.... bee you tif ful.

But it's not really a portraiture lens. You need something more in the line of a 50 or an 80.

 

[djacobox372]

Price is affordable, but I am hesitant to leave the Nikon family. The real underlying question is will there be an obvious advantage having the 10-17mm under my 18-105mm?

I was thinking about just renting the 10-24 Nikkor lens to test it out.

Nikon really doesn't have an advantage in the ultra-wides, so I wouldn't pay the extra $$ for a nikon.

Ultra wide angles are pretty specialized, and they're not typically used for portraiture (unless you want that distorted perspective look).

I would suggest looking into getting a used 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 or 80-200mm f2.8 af-d or afs zoom. Lenses in this category are fantastic for portraiture, and considered by most a "must have."

The 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 af-s is selling for around $1300 used in great condition on ebay these days.

The 80-200mm f2.8 af-d sells used for between $450 and $700, depending on if it's the single ring or faster focusing dual ring version (both have optics that meet or surpass the 70-200mm vr1)

The 80-200mm f2.8 af-s sells used for around $900--it has slightly better optics then the 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 af-s, but it lacks VR.


If you don't like to buy used you can still buy the 80-200mm f2.8 af-d dual ring, new for about $1000.

 

[bkristopher]

Price is affordable, but I am hesitant to leave the Nikon family. The real underlying question is will there be an obvious advantage having the 10-17mm under my 18-105mm?

I was thinking about just renting the 10-24 Nikkor lens to test it out.

Nikon really doesn't have an advantage in the ultra-wides, so I wouldn't pay the extra $$ for a nikon.

Ultra wide angles are pretty specialized, and they're not typically used for portraiture (unless you want that distorted perspective look).

I would suggest looking into getting a used 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 or 80-200mm f2.8 af-d or afs zoom. Lenses in this category are fantastic for portraiture, and considered by most a "must have."

The 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 af-s is selling for around $1300 used in great condition on ebay these days.

The 80-200mm f2.8 af-d sells used for between $450 and $700, depending on if it's the single ring or faster focusing dual ring version (both have optics that meet or surpass the 70-200mm vr1)

The 80-200mm f2.8 af-s sells used for around $900--it has slightly better optics then the 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 af-s, but it lacks VR.


If you don't like to buy used you can still buy the 80-200mm f2.8 af-d dual ring, new for about $1000.

Thanks for the input! If I got a wide it would be for landscape mainly. i will check out what you have suggested.

 

[KmH]

A concerted effort to learn the fundamentals of how lenses function, will go a long way to making lens choice decisions a lot easier for you.

 

[bkristopher]

Will do. Thanks Keith

 

[orb9220]

Landscape can be a small amount or large amount of your shooting. So starting with cheaper alternatives is a way to dabble your shutter finger in the waters.

Cheapest alternative is the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for around $470 new and $350 used.
Most recommended is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 cost a bit more but built like a tank and a constant f2.8.

And holding onto the "Just Nikon" mantra will cost you in extra dollars and many times no better in Image IQ or optics. Tho generally Nikon have better builds to their credit. The Tokina's are also built like tanks and highly regarded. The Sigma is has good build as well and gives you the widest reach to try out for the cheapest investment. Then if end up not using it much no big lost of funds and if really comes to wanting more in wide then you can sell it with better info of exactly which ultra-wide will fit your needs. Same kind of advice I give with new persons that never used primes and thinking an 50mm f1.4 is worth the extra cash when a 50mm f1.8 at half the price would have sufficed for their needs. Or then come to find out the 50mm doesn't fit their needs and realizing a 35mm is more what they need for their kind of shooting.

When entering any new focal range I prefer the cheapest alternative first to see if it sticks and comes a needed part of my regular shooting needs. Before investing in the more expensive glass. And the cheaper version is either sold to help fund the next step up in glass or put away as a emergency backup.
.