Wide angle lens choice..

[abhishekdg]

Hi,

Currently have a D90 with a 35mm 1.8g lens.However, looking forward to get a full frame wide angle lens as sometime in the near future will move to full frame. So it makes sense to slowly build up the arsenal.

Now having both 35mm 1.8g and 50mm 1.8D I just love primes. So the choice for wide angle choices have boiled down to mainly 3 lenses :-

1. Nikon 20mm f2.8D AF lens
2. Nikon 24mm f2.8D AF lens
3. Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR AF lens

Please let me know your experiences with these lenses as I just cannot afford 14-24mm and 17-35 lens and donot want to go for anything other than Nikon...

 

[abhishekdg]

Any advice?

 

[zamanakhan]

Out of those I would go with the 16-35. If that lens was a 2.8 and just as sharp it would be perfect. Also if you are going full frame don't dismiss the 28mm 1.8. It looks very promising.If you can save for it, th 14-24 is highly recommended from just about everybody.

 

[abhishekdg]

Thanks for the inputs. Well i am planning full frame but it would take atleast 6 -10 months to get one. In the mean time I really want to build on the lens arsenal so that I can use them once I buy the full frame. However, I know nothing compares to 14-24 mm lens.But its too heavy on my pocket . So looking for cheaper alternatives.

 

[mjhoward]

However, I know nothing compares to 14-24 mm lens.But its too heavy on my pocket . So looking for cheaper alternatives.

I hate to tell you this, but nearly everything is more expensive with FF.

 

[abhishekdg]

And that's the saddest part of the story.. however, do not wanna buy DX lenses any more as ultimately I woud end up selling them going to the full frame someday.

 

[Solarflare]

However, I know nothing compares to 14-24 mm lens.But its too heavy on my pocket . So looking for cheaper alternatives.

I hate to tell you this, but nearly everything is more expensive with FF.

Except those many lenses that arent available for DX in the first place (and, with the 1.5 crop factor, do quite something different for DX).

 

[mjhoward]

However, I know nothing compares to 14-24 mm lens.But its too heavy on my pocket . So looking for cheaper alternatives.

I hate to tell you this, but nearly everything is more expensive with FF.

Except those many lenses that arent available for DX in the first place (and, with the 1.5 crop factor, do quite something different for DX).

What?? I can use any FX lens on any DX body and your reply has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[zamanakhan]

However, I know nothing compares to 14-24 mm lens.But its too heavy on my pocket . So looking for cheaper alternatives.

I hate to tell you this, but nearly everything is more expensive with FF.

I don't know about that... The new 1.8g series primes look very promising and affordable.

 

[zamanakhan]

However, I know nothing compares to 14-24 mm lens.But its too heavy on my pocket . So looking for cheaper alternatives.

I hate to tell you this, but nearly everything is more expensive with FF.

Except those many lenses that arent available for DX in the first place (and, with the 1.5 crop factor, do quite something different for DX).

There is nothing that you can get on fx that you cannot on DX! I am not a big supporter of 3rd party, but it is easy to see that there are even more third party options for dx then there are for fx. On a large scale, it would not be beneficial for Nikon to produce both fx and dx equivalents, why produce a 50mm dx only lens when fx works fine? It would cause more shortages, higher prices for both fx and dx lenses as supply would be lowered since they are now making two separate lenses. It was always nikon's strategy to be able to use fx lenses on dx, that is why the f mount is still there, or else there would be a new dx mount. I Hate to say this, but you have more options with dx then u do with fx, it's just that when you move to fx, you know what is important to you, and you are not complaining about what is not there because everything you need is available, it is available in both formats!