Options
Wide Angle help for Christmas
Bigfoot424
Registered Users Posts: 14 Big grins
Hi All,
Still a newbie here as well as a very newbie photographer. I have a Nikon D 90 with a 18-200 lens that I really like. I'd like to buy a wide angle lens and will get one for Christmas if I can find one I can afford. I primarily love taking pics of the outdoors as well as historical sites. Many of the outdoor pics are in the mountains but really I like to take all kinds of pics. I am not buying one to go into business but for personal reasons only. I've been told by several people I can find a decent one in the 500-600 range. Do you really believe this or by getting this I'm setting myself up for disappointment? If this can be purchased at this price do you have any recs on particular ones that will fit my lens?
Thanks
Still a newbie here as well as a very newbie photographer. I have a Nikon D 90 with a 18-200 lens that I really like. I'd like to buy a wide angle lens and will get one for Christmas if I can find one I can afford. I primarily love taking pics of the outdoors as well as historical sites. Many of the outdoor pics are in the mountains but really I like to take all kinds of pics. I am not buying one to go into business but for personal reasons only. I've been told by several people I can find a decent one in the 500-600 range. Do you really believe this or by getting this I'm setting myself up for disappointment? If this can be purchased at this price do you have any recs on particular ones that will fit my lens?
Thanks
0
Comments
If you are wanting to go even wider, you're in luck. Check out the Tokina 11-16. Lots of happy owners will tell you that it beats the Nikon offerings in this price and angle range. I think it's one of the best deals of any lens period, and the new price is just under 600. BUT. But, it's really wide, so it's still a bit of a niche lens. At 11mm it can make Old Faithful look like a drinking fountain down the block, so you have to ask yourself if you want to blow your whole budget on a lens at the very far end of the wide angle spectrum.
On the other hand, do you want to overlap some of the range of your 18-200? That's not a bad idea, because there are much sharper lenses out there. A lens with better IQ in the 55 and under range would no doubt improve your landscapes. You have lots of choices.
The most popular option that folks will offer you are wide angle zooms (like the 17-35 Tamron for $400 of the Nikon 18-35 for about $375), many of them from 3rd party manufacturers. I'd just say do thorough research on them and make an informed decision. Some will be a step up from your lens but a few aren't well liked at all and most will be a lateral move. I am wondering about the 18-105 kit lens that folks got with the D7000. $190 sure seems cheap and may be worth playing with. Does anyone have experience with both? Is the -105 better?
The second option you will hear a lot is the one that I call 'let granny eat oatmeal and ramen for a year'. If I want to buy a new lens and determine that I can pay $200 for one, I usually find a way to cut out some other items in my life for awhile so I can get a $300 lens. Mostly it's worth it and I forget the sacrifice fairly quickly. If I ask for forum help to decide which one to purchase, 4 of the first 5 people will tell me to buy a $500 lens. Huh? It's easy to spend other people's money. You don't really have to hurt when you fork it over and when the other bills come due, and you get to have the lens you can't afford in real life. I always think that they assume you can go steal grandma's grocery money from out of her cookie jar. The fact that the most common advice on here is 'blow your budget' is disconcerting. Anyway, here's why I told you that long story. The Nikon 17-55 is the do almost everything well wide angle lens for DX cameras, such as yours and mine. It's not perfect, but it's an A- across the board and a simple, 1 lens solution to your wide angle needs. It's the lens a lot of DX shooters aspire to, and there are a dozen of them on the big auction site for 900-1000 BIN price. Having an idea where you may want to go in the future can help you decide which lens to buy today. You may consider questions like; Is this lens complementary to the lens I want to add to my bag down the road? and Can I resell this lens at a good price if I decide to upgrade in the future?
So, back to your budget. Here's an option that you'll likely hear only from me. Manual Focus AI or AI-S prime lenses. Such as the Nikon 28mm f2.8, about $200 for a top quality copy at KEH. The plus side is that they are pretty darn cheap and the image quality is a gigantic step up from your current lens. You'll think you were shooting thru a plastic pepsi bottle all this time. The downside is that you'll have to learn quite a bit about your camera. I actually think this is a plus but the learning curve can be steep at the beginning. Specifically, you have to focus this lens manually. You have to turn the ring all by yourself until the image gets sharp. Not too hard with mountains and forts and trees, they don't move much. Harder with lions and football players. And with the D90 you will also have to meter it yourself. You have to determine the aperture and f-stop and set them manually. Not difficult but daunting if you've never done it. And after you have it figured out it is knowledge that you take advantage of for the rest of your shooting life. Even folks who have never set their camera to M use this knowledge nearly every shot. May as well learn it now. And digital cameras are great trial and error machines. Take a shot, look at it. If it's too dark delete it and open up your aperture or decrease the shutter speed. If too light, do the opposite. Shoot and repeat. It doesn't take long to dial it in. You also learn to read histograms. And you can buy tools to aid you, like a light meter. Even a simple one that slides on your flash shoe gets you pretty close to good exposure.
MF lenses are adddictive, and the cheapest way to improve the IQ of your lenses, while you're saving up the $2000 for a new 14-24 AF-S. Or just go ahead and buy that one now, it's the fastest and sharpest there is and it's not my money. But don't tell grandma I sent you.
First, the Nikon 12-24 is a great lens but is out of your price range, even used and the 16-85 is not that much wider than what you have now.
This leaves 3rd party lenses. I have the Sigma 10-20 and enjoy it. Tokina makes the 12-24 which gets great reviews, as well as the the 11-16 suggested by the previous poster. I am considering getting the 11-16 only because it is a 2.8 lens, not for image quality of the Sigma.
I like, however, a bit of overlap on my lenses. The 18-200 does not do too great at 18mm, and if I have a choice between the two at 18-20 I will choose the Sigma.
http://fionalornephotography.smugmug.com
that 10 is super wide on a DX imo.. I since switched to 16-35 and I sorta miss the wideness of the 10..
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
Oddly enough, that is exactly how I would summarize the OP's question. What did I miss? To summarize my post, I said;
There are indeed lots of options for you in your price and focal length range. Wide angle is a broad range and you didn't say exactly where you wanted to be but the Tokina 11-16 is a trendsetter in the ultra wide end. And MF primes are the best IQ you can get in your budget if you're going wider. But you have to do some of their work for them. The other major option (I didn't mention AF-S primes or zooms because they are way over his stated budget, or D primes because the quality isn't much of a step up over his current lens) is wide angle zooms, and they run the gamut from darn good to darn bad. Study each lens individually and look closely to avoid buying a clunker. And realize that the majority of those zooms aren't much of a step up over your current lens. In adddition to your next lens, it pays to start thinking in long range terms regarding equipment upgrades.
I didn't mention either of these lenses in my post, so I'm not sure what you're saying in the first part but the second part is just misinformation on so many levels. You rule out 2 Nikon zooms and say that ONLY leaves 3rd party zooms? Of course not. There are other Nikon zooms (how about the 18-35, no great shakes but it's there, and the 18-55). And Nikon primes, AF and MF. And 3rd party primes. And saying that the OP shouldn't be interested in a lens because it is only 'a little bit wider' (16mm vs. 18) than his current one disregards everything about a lens that give it it's character except the focal length.
Wide
Straight
Did I say Wide?
Sun star is amazing also
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Wide, yes, but not overly distorted, which is what I absolutely love about that lens. I actually use that lens at either the 10mm or the 24mm side, depending on what I'm actually shooting. It's about as wide-covered as I think most people would want, if not a little too wide for your average amateur photographer (although if you're shooting landscapes and mountains and whatnot, you won't be disappointed with the 10mm end of things - I sure wish I'd had this lens my last trip to Colorado).
http://fionalornephotography.smugmug.com
Bigfoot, when you've figured out what it is exactly you're looking for, head back over to the FM with a specific WTB.
Thanks,
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Yeah. Took me a little to find this but that's fine. I appreciate the responses. I guess I'm a little confused by what I really want. I find that trying to take pics in the mountains I seem to miss a nice wide view that I get with the 18-200. I really don't know what lens I need or want at this point.
good luck!
Thanks. Interesting idea.