Wide angle

[Apex]

Ive been looking around for a wide angle zoom to replace my 18-55 kit lens and ive been having a hard time choosing.

I have a D200 and my budget is around $1300

So basically if im looking for a high quality lens, i can pretty much choose from anything, including the 17-55. Ive read some reviews however hinting that it is only worth it if im looking for just a better build quality and ruggedness (other qualities such as sharpness, contrast and color being said to be no better than the kit lens.)
How much of this is true?

I also had my eye on the 12-24 f/4 and the perspective looks interesting to me.

Im mostly into landscapes so the 12-24 sounds to be best but i cant take my eye off the 17-55. I just want to make sure that if im going to spend this much, i want to get top quality for my dollar.

Im also really only looking into nikon. I didnt want to get a good camera and put cheap glass on it.

I cannot try one out at a camera store near me because they dont have either otherwise i probably wouldnt need to ask for insight from everone here.

Also, will older wide angle primes work well on a D200? Because of the sharpness of primes, im always open to using one if it will work.

Thanks

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The 17-55 isn't really wide angle, it's more normal.

People buy the 17-55 because they need constant f/2.8, build quality, and faster AF.

If you don't shoot things that need that on a regular basis, the 18-70 or 16-85 is a better buy, just as sharp, cheaper, but not as fast in AF or aperture.

If you're in this for the long run, I highly suggest buying the sigma 12-24 becuase it works on 35mm. Full-Frame digital will eventually trickle down to the more consumer level and if you have a 12mm lens, you'll be pretty ridiculously wide.

 

[icassell]

I love my Sigma 10-20mm but it doesn't replace my 17-50. It's very wide and distorts perspective in interesting ways, but the 17-50 is my daily walkabout lens. The ultrawides also tend to be slower than the mid-range zooms (my 10-20 is a f4-5.6 whereas my 17-50 is an f2.8). There is a big difference between 10mm and 12mm on a crop sensor camera. I think tokina just came out with a 11-16 that might also be worth looking at.

check out this 10-20 link for some UWA examples.

http://www.10-20mm.com/

Another good resource is on photosig.com -- you can sort images by lens type.

 

[Apex]

I highly suggest buying the sigma 12-24

Is there a reason in choosing the sigma over nikon or is it mostly for being more cost efficient?
I guess im just really looking into using real nikon glass because ive never been able to afford it until recently so im trying to snag some while i can.

I think i will end up going the more wide angle route tho, maybe it will open some more creative possibilities for me.

Icassell, thats a great link, these are exactly the types of shots i would love to do, i could never just find one site completely devoted to them. Thanks!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The Nikkor doesn't cover the 35mm frame, the sigma does.

a rectilinear 12mm on 35mm is insanely wide...

 

[Senor Hound]

The Nikkor doesn't cover the 35mm frame, the sigma does.

a rectilinear 12mm on 35mm is insanely wide...

I didn't know it was rectilinear... that's crazy!

I know a guy who spent 2 grand on a 14mm because its rectilinear. Granted it is a Canon L lens with an f/2.8, but still... If you do any landscapes or architecture, this would ROCK!

 

[Ben-71]

Apex

"I also had my eye on the 12-24 f/4 and
the perspective looks interesting to me."​

I have the 12-24. It's a good lens.
Not at the level of the 14-24 f/2.8, but it has nothing to be
ashamed of, and it is much more convenient to use. The
front element is not as accident prone as the on the 14-24.
The viewing angle of 99 deg. is a joy.​

I tried a slim 77mm B+W filter for vignetting, there is non. ​

 

[JimmyO]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm...Awesome lens!

Its Sooo Wide, like tttttthhhhhhiiiiiiiiissssss wide. Now its not the best IQ but i havent noticed anything rendering a pic unusable.

Good comparison:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-optics.htm

 

[Apex]

Hmm, i think ill look into the 12-24 sigma.
Maybe my local store carries it and i can try it out.

Can anyone tell me how the build quality is on it?
Ive read some reviews but im just wondering if anyone has first hand experience.

And to all the replys, thanks for your help.

 

[shivaswrath]

i have used the 14-24 extensively, I would spend the extra on that. . .amazing lens!

 

[Apex]

I guess i just really have to wait until i have tried out some of the other ones before deciding whether or not the extra 300 is worth it.

Hopefully i can find a place around here with them in stock

 

[shivaswrath]

borrowlenses.com, rent them and try them out!

that's what i did and fell in love with te 14-24m. . .now I just need to save up to buy it, lol!

 

[RyanLilly]

Well you could get both the sigma 12-24 and the tamron 17-50 with your budget.

 

[Apex]

Regarding the 14-24, on a D200 would it even be worth getting? Ive read that it really only shines on a FF. There has to be some benefit to it on a non FF though right? It has to be leaps and bounds better over all the others anyway doesnt it? even though i cant go to 12mm its still loads wider than my 18-55

 

[Apex]

bump (regarding above question)