Cheap wide angle for Nikon?

Energize · 30 Nov 2016 at 22:15

I'm going on holiday in a few weeks and want to try my hand at doing some landscape photography, I'm on a FX body so DX or FX lens is fine, I can work in 1.5x crop mode and take the res hit, it doesn't bother me as it's not too serious.

Just wondering what sort of options there are out there, other than the obvious ones on the Nikon website?

D.P. · 30 Nov 2016 at 22:42

Nikon 18-35mm VR is very nice on FF, as is the 20mm f/1.8 prime. These are the budget FF options.

But you don't need a wide angle lens for landscape photography. Do you have something like a 24-70/85/120mm? then the 24mm is wide enough ofr most landscape uses. If you are not careful you will just end up with a load of blue sky and some grass at your feet. Conversely, you might find a telephoto lens more useful, I take more landscape photos with my 70-200mm than anything wider than 24mm.

bcjames · 1 Dec 2016 at 07:21

How cheap is cheap? I have the 16-35 f4 and it's amazingly sharp, and being 77mm it can share filters with my other two thirds of the holy trinity, unlike the 14-24. Sub £700 second hand.

As above though, 24-70 is probably on my camera for landscape more often, with the wide angle being for particular times rather than general use. I do some photo work for an orchestra, and I've started using the 16-35 on one camera and a 70-200 on the other, and I'm getting good coverage with that combo.

Energize · 1 Dec 2016 at 08:22

D.P. said:
Nikon 18-35mm VR is very nice on FF, as is the 20mm f/1.8 prime. These are the budget FF options.

But you don't need a wide angle lens for landscape photography. Do you have something like a 24-70/85/120mm? then the 24mm is wide enough ofr most landscape uses. If you are not careful you will just end up with a load of blue sky and some grass at your feet. Conversely, you might find a telephoto lens more useful, I take more landscape photos with my 70-200mm than anything wider than 24mm.

I have an 85mm, 35mm is the widest I have, but I think I'd like to try some proper wide angle stuff.

The 18-35mm does not have VR I don't think? Is the D version ok? I see that for £260 which is a price I'm ok with, the G version is going for around £450 which is a bit more than I'm willing to spend for a bit of experimentation. Same goes for the prime really, I should have explained that £500 is not what I mean by budget for me.

The Nikon 20mm f/2.8 I see for £280 is that any good?

Ideally I'm looking for something up to £300.

Columbo · 1 Dec 2016 at 08:35

If you don't mind working in crop mode some options are (I've used all of these and all should be available used for less than £300):

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - This would be my personal choice. Nothing bad to say about it.
Tokina 12-24 f4 - Sharp lens, the lack of distortion is very surprising.
Sigma 8-16mm - More expensive than the above but gets you 12mm equiv if you want it, can get your feet in the frame if not careful.
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 - Very sharp lens, expensive by comparison.
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 - In expensive, and very good at f8.
Tamron 10-24mm f3.5 - Didnt like it, had AF issues on my old D7000

Haven't used:
Nikon 10-24mm - Very good by all accounts.
Nikon 12-24mm - Have no idea if any good or not.

Kei · 1 Dec 2016 at 09:29

I'd go with a used 24mm f2.8 AF-D with your budget. You are unlikely to loose any money if you don't get on with it. It's very good stopped down, supposedly better than the 20 though I think it's only a small difference. The extreme corners will always lag behind a little bit but that's what the extra outlay for a newer G lens will get you.

The old 18-35 D lens is comparable to the old 20-35mm f2.8 AF-D and 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S zooms but obviously a lot slower and the corners tend to be worse. They are all a little behind the primes but not by much.

D.P. · 1 Dec 2016 at 14:23

Energize said:
I have an 85mm, 35mm is the widest I have, but I think I'd like to try some proper wide angle stuff.

The 18-35mm does not have VR I don't think? Is the D version ok? I see that for £260 which is a price I'm ok with, the G version is going for around £450 which is a bit more than I'm willing to spend for a bit of experimentation. Same goes for the prime really, I should have explained that £500 is not what I mean by budget for me. The Nikon 20mm f/2.8 I see for £280 is that any good?

Ideally I'm looking for something up to £300.

MY, mistake, doesn't have VR. But it is the G lens you want, not the older D lens which is quite poor on modern DSLRS.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-FX-Lenses/Nikon-AF-S-18-35mm-f3.5-4.5G-ED-Lens

The Old 20mm f/2.8 Also doesn't work very well on DSLRs. You want the f/1.8 version:
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-FX-Lenses/Nikon-AF-S-20mm-f1.8G-ED-Lens

The older version of these lenses have real problem working on digital sensor,s they perform much better on film.

If this is something just to play with then just hire the lens for your trip, or buy second hand and then sell on again when you are done - you wont loose much money at all.

Energize · 1 Dec 2016 at 15:04

How can they perform better on film?

Does that website not check amazon? Some stuff is cheaper on there. Oh dear so many options now.

D.P. · 1 Dec 2016 at 15:33

Because DSLRs have a very different response to the angle of incidence of the incoming light rays. Lots of wide angle lenses that were great on film just don't perform well on digital sensors.

The website does check Amazon its listed in the price comparisons both lenses, Amazon is not the cheapest though?

EDIT: IF this is just a trial then do buy second hand whatever you do, then no need to limit the budget much because when out come to sell on again you wont loose much money if any, you might even make a profit if you can find a bargain. i ahve made a profit on most o the lenses i have bought and sold on second hand. Getting paid to use a lens for 2-3 years sure is nice.

Steve M · 1 Dec 2016 at 17:30

The 20mm f1.8 is absolutely stunning, but is certainly not cheap...

20mm f2.8D meant to be very good and fits the bill nicely and is within your budget

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20af.htm

Kei · 1 Dec 2016 at 20:50

Makes me glad I got my 20mm f1.8 new last year for £533. It really is astoundingly sharp compared with my older 24mm f2.8. (although the 24 is from the early 70's)

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 1 Dec 2016 at 22:52

Tokina 17MM F3.5 ATX PRO. I use one on my D600.

Mine is pretty sharp stopped down,it does nice sunstars and even flare resistance is not too bad.

Energize · 1 Dec 2016 at 23:20

D.P. said:
Because DSLRs have a very different response to the angle of incidence of the incoming light rays. Lots of wide angle lenses that were great on film just don't perform well on digital sensors.

That's interesting, I didn't realise that. Are there any good technical articles which explain it in more depth?

The website does check Amazon its listed in the price comparisons both lenses, Amazon is not the cheapest though?

Not for that lens, but I was looking at other stuff though and the D610 for example is much cheaper on Amazon then the site it suggests.

EDIT: IF this is just a trial then do buy second hand whatever you do, then no need to limit the budget much because when out come to sell on again you wont loose much money if any, you might even make a profit if you can find a bargain. i ahve made a profit on most o the lenses i have bought and sold on second hand. Getting paid to use a lens for 2-3 years sure is nice.

Yeah I almost always buy second hand. My budget is simply limited by the capital I have.

Jono · 2 Dec 2016 at 10:39

Tokina 11-16 would be great. Also 77mm. I had one on my canon and it was sharp as a tack, really.
Could use it full frame but only 16mm.

D.P. · 2 Dec 2016 at 14:39

Energize said:
That's interesting, I didn't realise that. Are there any good technical articles which explain it in more depth?

Not for that lens, but I was looking at other stuff though and the D610 for example is much cheaper on Amazon then the site it suggests.

Yeah I almost always buy second hand. My budget is simply limited by the capital I have.

Lensrentals had a good article and some detailed scientific measurements but they seem to have changed their site and lost a lot of the old reviews.

If you are strictly limited ten the old 20mm f/2.8D lens will be OK stopped down to get a feel for the ultra wide angles, but I think something like the 24mm lens will be more practical. I cant stress enough how difficult ultrawide angle lenses are to use, and how they are specialists tools and only work in very particular scenarios. If you have the mind set that you need a wider angle "to fit more in" then you are thinking about it wrong (what you will fit more of in is boring blue sky and dirt at your feet while the actual subject of interest gets smaller and smaller). Wide angle lenses are about perspective. You need very strong foreground and mid-ground elements. It not about shooting a a panoramic vista, its about shooting something up-close that also has interest and mid and far distances.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 2 Dec 2016 at 14:52

D.P. said:
Lensrentals had a good article and some detailed scientific measurements but they seem to have changed their site and lost a lot of the old reviews.

If you are strictly limited ten the old 20mm f/2.8D lens will be OK stopped down to get a feel for the ultra wide angles, but I think something like the 24mm lens will be more practical. I cant stress enough how difficult ultrawide angle lenses are to use, and how they are specialists tools and only work in very particular scenarios. If you have the mind set that you need a wider angle "to fit more in" then you are thinking about it wrong (what you will fit more of in is boring blue sky and dirt at your feet while the actual subject of interest gets smaller and smaller). Wide angle lenses are about perspective. You need very strong foreground and mid-ground elements. It not about shooting a a panoramic vista, its about shooting something up-close that also has interest and mid and far distances.

I would agree on this - I like the 17MM for the perspective it gives,but 24MM tends to be a good compromise,and you tend also to get less issues like distortion too,etc.

bonzo · 3 Dec 2016 at 13:30

You ask for cheap, but none of the Nikons are going to be cheap.

Cheap would mean something like a Samyang, which has very favourable reviews and very fast @ f1.4

http://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/958/...ns_for_nikon?gclid=CPuIsIKQ2NACFfcK0wodJOEFXw

And older manual lenses can work fine on digital. In fact, check out my pal Tim's website. All the wide angle stuff was shot with an old manual Tamron 17mm prime on Nikon D700 FF body

http://www.cretephotography.com/panoramic_prints.htm
http://www.cretephotography.com/Lenses.htm

AS mentioned already, the Tokina 11-16 is great but is only really useable on FF at 16mm. I have the same lens and use it on both my D610 and old crop D300

You will get some distortion on very wide angle but this can generally be sorted in Adobe CS or Lightroom.

You dont really need to be paying for VR for landscape shooting.

Toxophilus · 4 Dec 2016 at 23:44

I'm using a Nikon 18-35. It does a nice job and I have got some great images from it in the few times that I have used it. I picked it up 2nd hand from ebay in mint condition for around £350.