Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A Wide lens for my Nikon D90?  (Read 5201 times)
selsoe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« on: January 30, 2009, 12:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a D90 with the kit 18-200 lens. I am discovering the great possibilities of wide angle photography and would like a nice wide angle lens to supplement my kit all round lens. Obviously, I want a lens that does something my 18-200 can't do in the wide range but I am prepared to end up realizing that the 18-200 suits me.

I have thought about a fixed focal length lens because I have an idea that it will pass more light through, but a zoom might do that just as well, I don't know? Other than that, I hope to achieve a very high depth of field.

Do you have any advice? The budget is around $500.
Logged
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2009, 01:34:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I use the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 lens which is quite good, and provides a very useful range of wide angle focal lengths.  It is a bit more than your budget, although possibly you could find a used copy.  Tokina makes a 12-24mm f/4 lens with very similar specs that seems to have been well received and is priced within your budget.  I believe there is also a 10-20 mm Sigma lens that is fairly popular.  I haven't tried either the Tokina or Sigma lenses but both companies make some decent lenses--you could look for some online reviews.  There are relatively few fixed focal length lenses in the ultrawide category and they tend to be very expensive.  You mention the idea of passing more light, by which I assume you mean that a wide aperture is preferred.  Nikon makes 14-24mm f/2.8 that is one stop faster than the f/4 mentioned above, but it is much more expensive.
Logged

John DeMott
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1598


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2009, 01:34:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a Nikon 12-24mm zoom. A nice wide angle lens, well worth saving your pennies for.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2374


« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2009, 03:14:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I have used the Tokina and now the Nikkor 12-24. Both are excellent lenses where I would give the Nikkor the edge by a small margin. Because of the introduction of the 14-24 the 12-24 appears to have been priced lower. Especially 2nd hand.


Logged
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2009, 03:39:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I've heard good things about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens.  It's about $600 I think, but the next step up is about $1500.  The only reason I'm not getting it for my D300 is that it's a DX lens.  I don't want to gamble on the future of the DSLR market.  I like the fact that full frame sensors are coming down in price so quickly, and I've decided to stop buying DX lenses.  Good luck in your search for a good lens.  The 18-200 is nice for it's wide focal range, but it leaves a lot to be desired in the quality department.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 06:00:44 PM by jasonrandolph » Logged

brianrpatterson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2009, 03:57:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sigma 10-20 is an excellent zoom and costs right at $500 - and even less used. I owned one for several years before upgrading to the amazing 14-24, which could be your last wide zoom, BTW. The 12-24 Nikkor is a good choice as mentioned...
Logged

Brian Patterson
Knoxville, Tennessee
BRP Marketing Design
BRP Publications [Print-on-Demand]

Nikon D300 | Nikon D40
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2009, 01:04:18 AM »
ReplyReply

We've got both the Nikon 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20.  I bought the 12-24 first, but had to check my bag each time I left on a shoot to make sure my wife hadn't lifted it for her own shoots.  I finally bought the 10-20 out of self-defense.  Now she's checking her bag to make sure I haven't swapped out HER 10-20 for MY 12-24.

The Sigma may cost less than half the Nikon, but in the particular examples we own and shoot daily in our business, the Sigma outperforms the Nikon on all counts.  You can sort the images by which lens they were taken with.  The Sigma is sharper, more contrasty, and has better color saturation.  On top of all that, those silly little 2mm of extra coverage at the low end are really significant.  When you need wide coverage, you really need it and the Sigma is a lot wider.  

Buy the Sigma 10-20 and don't look back.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 01:06:01 AM by Hank » Logged
selsoe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2009, 04:32:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your advice, all. I think the Sigma comes closest my price range - the others seem a bit north of the $500 from where I have been looking unless I look into the used market. Any fixed focal length lenses I should look into? Is it realistic to wish for f/2.8 in that price range?
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1974



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2009, 03:41:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: selsoe
Thanks for your advice, all. I think the Sigma comes closest my price range - the others seem a bit north of the $500 from where I have been looking unless I look into the used market. Any fixed focal length lenses I should look into? Is it realistic to wish for f/2.8 in that price range?

I'll add my plug for the Sigma 10-20, I think its performance is very good for the price.

Peter
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
professorgb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2009, 07:02:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The Tokina 12-24 won't disappoint.  It is sharp and contrasty, with quick autofocus.  It can be prone to flare and has more chromatic aberration than either the Nikon or Sigma.  The build quality is top notch, and so is the image quality.

And, it's the cheapest of the pack.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad