UWA Decision

[masonsanf]

I'm on a limited budget looking for a good UWA that goes to 35mm on the close end. I can get a 20-35 2.8 used Nikon for the same price as a 17-35 f4 Tokina new. From what Ken Rockwell says the Tokina is the way to go, but he can be a little exuberant at times and I take what he says with a grain of salt. Opinions on what to do?
Thanks

 

[PaulWog]

Do not ever listen to Ken Rockwell. Some of his advice hits the mark kind of like I can get piss in the toilet blindfolded.

What is your budget? Nikon's 18-35 is a great option on a budget. Nikon's 16-35 VR is fairly good. Tamron's 15-30 is amazing, but there is added cost, weight, and size if you need filers.

 

[masonsanf]

Do not ever listen to Ken Rockwell. Some of his advice is right kind of like I can get piss in the toilet blindfolded.

What is your budget? Nikon's 18-35 is a great option on a budget. Nikon's 16-35 VR is fairly good. Tamron's 15-30 is amazing, but there is added cost, weight, and size if you need filers.

My problem is I want it all... My budget is under 800 and preferably I'd like something that accepts filters and goes from at least 20-35mm. I initially went with the 20-35 2.8 because it fulfilled all of this and is metal; now I'm thinking about other options that are good build quality and relatively fast.
I'm mainly concerned about getting the maximum IQ stopped down and having a decent range that my 50 1.4 can step to without a huge jump

 

[PaulWog]

Do not ever listen to Ken Rockwell. Some of his advice is right kind of like I can get piss in the toilet blindfolded.

What is your budget? Nikon's 18-35 is a great option on a budget. Nikon's 16-35 VR is fairly good. Tamron's 15-30 is amazing, but there is added cost, weight, and size if you need filers.

My problem is I want it all... My budget is under 800 and preferably I'd like something that accepts filters and goes from at least 20-35mm. I initially went with the 20-35 2.8 because it fulfilled all of this and is metal; now I'm thinking about other options that are good build quality and relatively fast.
I'm mainly concerned about getting the maximum IQ stopped down and having a decent range that my 50 1.4 can step to without a huge jump

Buying a lens because it is made of metal is kind of like putting a spoiler on your car to keep it on the road. Do you really need a metal lens? The Nikon 20-35 is a very old lens and is likely a very bad choice... unless if you need glasses and don't wear any. Metal doesn't make the glass any better, and it doesn't equate to longevity necessarily.

Reading your last sentence, I would like to slow you down: Don't view purchasing lenses as filling gaps. There is a wrong way to view focal lengths; that is, viewing every focal length as something you need to fill in order to be able to get 'the shot'. If you view photography from that end, you'll be carrying around 6 prime lenses and a zoom, and you won't know what to do with yourself. Or, you just won't know what lens you want to have on your camera. OORRRRR, you'll end up purchasing a superzoom. With that all said, there is merit to being able to shoot at 35mm, 50mm, ultrawide, 24mm, etc.

Shooting at 35mm at f5.6-f22, and shooting at 35mm at f1.8-f2.8, are two very different things. If you're looking primarily to do landscape photography, or you simply like shooting stopped down, then this won't be much of an issue (unless if you also like starscape photography).

With your budget in mind, I would like to hear about what you want to use the lens for? What types of photography? Again, I would say that the Nikon 18-35 is your best bet in your price range, and is a great lens.

 

[masonsanf]

Do not ever listen to Ken Rockwell. Some of his advice is right kind of like I can get piss in the toilet blindfolded.

What is your budget? Nikon's 18-35 is a great option on a budget. Nikon's 16-35 VR is fairly good. Tamron's 15-30 is amazing, but there is added cost, weight, and size if you need filers.

My problem is I want it all... My budget is under 800 and preferably I'd like something that accepts filters and goes from at least 20-35mm. I initially went with the 20-35 2.8 because it fulfilled all of this and is metal; now I'm thinking about other options that are good build quality and relatively fast.
I'm mainly concerned about getting the maximum IQ stopped down and having a decent range that my 50 1.4 can step to without a huge jump

Buying a lens because it is made of metal is kind of like putting a spoiler on your car to keep it on the road. Do you really need a metal lens? The Nikon 20-35 is a very old lens and is likely a very bad choice... unless if you need glasses and don't wear any. Metal doesn't make the glass any better, and it doesn't equate to longevity necessarily.

Reading your last sentence, I would like to slow you down: Don't view purchasing lenses as filling gaps. There is a wrong way to view focal lengths; that is, viewing every focal length as something you need to fill in order to be able to get 'the shot'. If you view photography from that end, you'll be carrying around 6 prime lenses and a zoom, and you won't know what to do with yourself. Or, you just won't know what lens you want to have on your camera. OORRRRR, you'll end up purchasing a superzoom. With that all said, there is merit to being able to shoot at 35mm, 50mm, ultrawide, 24mm, etc.

Shooting at 35mm at f5.6-f22, and shooting at 35mm at f1.8-f2.8, are two very different things. If you're looking primarily to do landscape photography, or you simply like shooting stopped down, then this won't be much of an issue (unless if you also like starscape photography).

With your budget in mind, I would like to hear about what you want to use the lens for? What types of photography? Again, I would say that the Nikon 18-35 is your best bet in your price range, and is a great lens.

Mainly landscape for this lens. I rented a Nikon 35mm 1.8 for a recent trip to test out, and found that I wanted to go wider a majority of the time. I have a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 (terrible distortion I know, but correctable for astrophotography, and mainly for fun) that is often TOO wide. That's how I arrived at my ~20-35mm decision for focal range. Looking at the 18-35, I think it looks good and I definitely have it as a strong contender.

 

[astroNikon]

I had the 20-35 /2.8. I think it's a great lens but after I tried a 18-35 I had to go wider!!

Keep in mind of screw on filters vs square filters. Square aren't that Expensive to get into if you skimp on the mount and not the filter itself compared to good screwons.
But I've stuck with 18-35 as my filters are 77mm screwons though I also have square filters too

I got rid of my 35-70/2.8 and 20-35/2.8 because they had issues with shooting towards light (didn't have to be bright either) but the 35-70 was excellent in the studio. The 20-35 was mostly outdoors and had those issues. A really good heavy duty build though.

 

[masonsanf]

Do not ever listen to Ken Rockwell. Some of his advice is right kind of like I can get piss in the toilet blindfolded.

What is your budget? Nikon's 18-35 is a great option on a budget. Nikon's 16-35 VR is fairly good. Tamron's 15-30 is amazing, but there is added cost, weight, and size if you need filers.

My problem is I want it all... My budget is under 800 and preferably I'd like something that accepts filters and goes from at least 20-35mm. I initially went with the 20-35 2.8 because it fulfilled all of this and is metal; now I'm thinking about other options that are good build quality and relatively fast.
I'm mainly concerned about getting the maximum IQ stopped down and having a decent range that my 50 1.4 can step to without a huge jump

Buying a lens because it is made of metal is kind of like putting a spoiler on your car to keep it on the road. Do you really need a metal lens? The Nikon 20-35 is a very old lens and is likely a very bad choice... unless if you need glasses and don't wear any. Metal doesn't make the glass any better, and it doesn't equate to longevity necessarily.

Reading your last sentence, I would like to slow you down: Don't view purchasing lenses as filling gaps. There is a wrong way to view focal lengths; that is, viewing every focal length as something you need to fill in order to be able to get 'the shot'. If you view photography from that end, you'll be carrying around 6 prime lenses and a zoom, and you won't know what to do with yourself. Or, you just won't know what lens you want to have on your camera. OORRRRR, you'll end up purchasing a superzoom. With that all said, there is merit to being able to shoot at 35mm, 50mm, ultrawide, 24mm, etc.

Shooting at 35mm at f5.6-f22, and shooting at 35mm at f1.8-f2.8, are two very different things. If you're looking primarily to do landscape photography, or you simply like shooting stopped down, then this won't be much of an issue (unless if you also like starscape photography).

With your budget in mind, I would like to hear about what you want to use the lens for? What types of photography? Again, I would say that the Nikon 18-35 is your best bet in your price range, and is a great lens.

Mainly landscape for this lens. I rented a Nikon 35mm 1.8 for a recent trip to test out, and found that I wanted to go wider a majority of the time. I have a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 (terrible distortion I know, but correctable for astrophotography, and mainly for fun) that is often TOO wide. That's how I arrived at my ~20-35mm decision for focal range. Looking at the 18-35, I think it looks good and I definitely have it as a strong contender.

I had the 20-35 /2.8. I think it's a great lens but after I tried a 18-35 I had to go wider!!

Keep in mind of screw on filters vs square filters. Square aren't that Expensive to get into if you skimp on the mount and not the filter itself compared to good screwons.
But I've stuck with 18-35 as my filters are 77mm screwons though I also have square filters too

I got rid of my 35-70/2.8 and 20-35/2.8 because they had issues with shooting towards light (didn't have to be bright either) but the 35-70 was excellent in the studio. The 20-35 was mostly outdoors and had those issues. A really good heavy duty build though.

Thanks for the input!

 

[ruifo]

I'm on a limited budget looking for a good UWA that goes to 35mm on the close end. I can get a 20-35 2.8 used Nikon for the same price as a 17-35 f4 Tokina new. From what Ken Rockwell says the Tokina is the way to go, but he can be a little exuberant at times and I take what he says with a grain of salt. Opinions on what to do?
Thanks

Full frame UWA for under $800?
Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED

Read my full review of it in this link below, to understand why:
Review: Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED (excellent UWA FX lens): Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[nerwin]

18-35G from Nikon is probably the best full frame ultra wide angle under $1000. Its not too big and not too heavy either. Its great lens and I'm in the process of buying one.

 

[masonsanf]

I'm on a limited budget looking for a good UWA that goes to 35mm on the close end. I can get a 20-35 2.8 used Nikon for the same price as a 17-35 f4 Tokina new. From what Ken Rockwell says the Tokina is the way to go, but he can be a little exuberant at times and I take what he says with a grain of salt. Opinions on what to do?
Thanks

Full frame UWA for under $800?
Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED

Read my full review of it in this link below, to understand why:
Review: Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED (excellent UWA FX lens): Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

This seals the deal for me. Thanks for an extensive review!