Wide Angle Lenses for Nikon
I'm in the mind to get a wide angle lens for my D40. Eventually I'll upgrade to a D300/s, but I've decided the lens should come first. I'd like to have a wide angle for some trips I'll be taking in the near future, so I'm trying to make my choice. My contenders are:
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
I've ruled out the Tokina 11-16 because of the short range and inability to autofocus on the D40. It seems that the Tamron 10-24 has enough issues to rule it out as well. I really want something wider than 12mm, so that rules out some others.
My budget is set at $800 - enough to buy the Nikon if that's the one to get. I've read all of the threads and reviews I can find on these lenses, but you know how it goes. You never have enough information. I'd like to see some opinions and particularly to see some hi-res shots from any of the lenses. The Sigma 3.5 is significantly more expensive than the older 4-5.6, and I question whether or not that's really worth it. It's only a third stop faster at the wide end, and I'll usually be at 10-12mm. I will likely usually have a tripod and shoot f/8-f/11 anyway in low light conditions. At 10mm, I don't see f/4 being much of a problem for typical indoor shots. Is that a fair assumption?
Thanks in advance for any input. One of the biggest bonuses for the older Sigma is that I could add a 35 1.8 and still fall under budget.
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
I've ruled out the Tokina 11-16 because of the short range and inability to autofocus on the D40. It seems that the Tamron 10-24 has enough issues to rule it out as well. I really want something wider than 12mm, so that rules out some others.
My budget is set at $800 - enough to buy the Nikon if that's the one to get. I've read all of the threads and reviews I can find on these lenses, but you know how it goes. You never have enough information. I'd like to see some opinions and particularly to see some hi-res shots from any of the lenses. The Sigma 3.5 is significantly more expensive than the older 4-5.6, and I question whether or not that's really worth it. It's only a third stop faster at the wide end, and I'll usually be at 10-12mm. I will likely usually have a tripod and shoot f/8-f/11 anyway in low light conditions. At 10mm, I don't see f/4 being much of a problem for typical indoor shots. Is that a fair assumption?
Thanks in advance for any input. One of the biggest bonuses for the older Sigma is that I could add a 35 1.8 and still fall under budget.
0
Comments
I haven't felt the need to upgrade yet.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
And instead of the 35 1.8, I'd recommend the Sigma 30 1.4 - a simply spectacular low light lens.
I'll check out the 30 1.4, I hadn't even heard of it. Thanks for the suggestion.
My Photographic Adventures
Nikon D7000 | 10-20 | 50 | 55-200