Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wide Angle Lenses  (Read 5648 times)
Aleris_lib
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



WWW
« on: January 13, 2012, 05:59:01 PM »
ReplyReply

this topic has probably been started up on here in the past, but looking through 18 pages of threads is not what im looking for at midnight Smiley
sooo... i have a Nikon D200, with an 18-200mm lens =) ... i have been wanting to expand my repertoire of Lenses, and have been debating between a new Macro, or a new Wide Angle...
a newly announced holiday to Spain has made my mind up, i will not find many minuté things to photograph, yet lots of wonderful mountain views!
now! the debate is on which Wide Angle lense to actually get =/
i have nooo idea where i should truly start, since there are sooo many choices! please! someone help me!!
budget is always an issue, so i am not worried about getting a cheaper off-brand version of a lens, provided it'll fit! =) however if people think i should go for a better quality true-nikon lense, please say so! thanks!!
Logged
malam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2012, 06:32:55 PM »
ReplyReply

They both perform different tasks.  You should ask yourself which one are you going to use most ?  You may want to review the pictures that you've been taking with the 18-200mm and see what  proportion of these were taken at the wide end of the lense ? If money is not your problem, buy both and develop a game plan to use them.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1768



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2012, 06:44:43 PM »
ReplyReply

If that's a DX sensor camera, I highly recommend the Sigma 10-20mm.
Logged

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

Posts: 617



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2012, 11:52:40 AM »
ReplyReply

For the most part, there are only zooms for DX wide angle, other than a couple of fisheye lenses. No fixed lenses, other than the 14mm Nikkor which is overkill for your camera and will give you a back ache packing it.

Nikon has two DX wide zooms, the 10-24 and 12-24. I've had the 12-24 since it first came out and it's been a workhorse for me on my DX cameras until going to the FX. FX has a much better assortment of both fixed and wide angle lenses that I need and use. The 12-24 even works on my film and FX cameras and at 24mm was one of the best wides around until recently. However, with the 12-24 on FX, you need to keep the zoom to 18mm and longer. It works just fine.

If you need a fisheye, Nikon's 10.5 is hard to beat.

If you really like the fisheye distortion, the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom is a lot of fun. A friend got one a few months back and has had a blast with this lens. It's not for everybody and can get old if you simply use it to distort.
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
Kerry L
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2012, 07:57:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I started with the D200 and then moved up to a FF camera. I had a pretty good idea that I would be doing this so when I bought new lenses I avoided lenses that were DX format specific. My widest lens for the DX was a FF 20mm which worked out to about a 28mm in full frame. As the crop factor of the DX format is 1.5 your 18-200 would seem to be a 27 -300. 28mm was, and to many still is, the "standard" lens for travel and scenic photography.

I'd think carefully if a really wide lens (10.5 = 15 in DX)  would be useful for mountain views. Remember, the mountains will look small in very wide shot. It would be perfect for architecture and indoors though.

The suggestion about reviewing your images and noting which ones were done at 18 or so is a good suggestion.

Finally, think about the weight you'll be carrying, some ultra-wide zooms are very heavy. Different lenses may take different filter sizes which add to the stuff you're lugging around and how easily your photography can be done.



Logged

"Try and let your mind see further than your eyes.”
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1434


« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2012, 08:45:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Before moving from a D200 to the D700, my glass of choice was the Nikon 12-24 f4. A superb optic IMHO. Which reminds me, I must get on & sell it now!
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1723



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2012, 10:47:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Chairman Bill. The Nikon 12-24mm f/4G is an excellent lens for DX format and Nikon 1 series cameras.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
jalcocer
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2012, 09:39:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Sigma has a 10-20mm 3.5 at a very decent price
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 720


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2012, 10:19:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I used in the past the sigma 10-20. It is not worse than the nikon 12-24 i find. I do not like the nikon that much...it is too expensive for its price
Tokina makes also some respectable widezooms - now also with an ultrasonic AF motor
I must say there are no very good wide angle lenses for APS; One reason for me to go to FX...
The nikkor 14-24 is the best, but a chunk of glass and if you let it fall you better buy a new one..
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
RobSaecker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2012, 01:18:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Not being able to afford the Nikon 12-24, I got the Tokina 12-24 instead. Works well for me, and is actually better than my Nikkor 20/2.8, though that may be because my 20 is not a good copy. But as mentioned already, both the Nikon and Tokina 12-24s are hefty lenses.
Logged

Rob
photo blog - http://robsaecker.com
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad