Wide Angle for Nikon
- Started
- Last post
- 20 Responses
- dMullins
Looking to spend under $500 for a decent quality wide angle lens. Looking for some recommendations, because of course the only wide angle lens my local shop carries is almost $1500.
Thanks!
- dMullins0
Christmas present to myself, so maybe could go a little more than $500 if necessary.
- honestIy0
Bower 14mm f/2.8 Ultra Wide Angle Manual Focus Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pr…
Price: $426.00- there's an 8mm fisheye for 349
http://www.bhphotovi… you said wide angle, so in case you want it widerhonestIy - that wont be very wide unless you are using a full frame thoughMiguex
- FFOGTFO!honestIy
- you lost me, but something tells me it's not good...
I guess it all depends how wide you want itMiguex - lol, full frame or get the fuck out was all ;)honestIy
- hahaha yeah, well I'm not a photographer, so I have a consumer dslr :)Miguex
- there's an 8mm fisheye for 349
- Miguex0
Shot with a Tokina 10-17mm (for Canon, but they have a Nikon one too)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokin…I think I got it new, for around $600
- $560
http://www.google.co…Miguex - don't listen too much to what ken rockwell says, fyi.jaylarson
- who's that?Miguex
- $560
- nb0
I used to own the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. Rather incredible for the cost. Better than the Nikon DX 12-24mm, (not better than the FX.)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/1…
Sigma says $740, B&H says $479.
I eventually sold it and bought the 14mm f2.8, but that's because I'm made of money.
- dMullins0
Nice, Miguex! Would that lens be worth it on a D2X (non-full frame)?
- you want fisheye or wide angle? there is a difference.honestIy
- Sorry, you're right! I just want a nice wide angle. Fisheye is cool, but not what I need.dMullins
- I was saying nice based on the images I saw on the site link itself.dMullins
- its a fisheye on a full frame, as you can see on the photos above, you don't see the black circleMiguex
- Miguex0
^
Those photos are shot on a 300d (not full frame) and I use it now on a t1i (not full frame).I was in a similar situation, I wanted a balance between price and quality, I've been told to look into Tokina and Sigma for alternatives, I ended up picking up the Tokina one, had it for a couple of years, pretty much the only lens I use.
- akrok0
do you find lenses to be more expensive for canon vs nikon? or does those sigma (etc) usually work for both?
- Miguex0
this is how a fisheye looks
see the black borders on the edge? you don't get those on non-full frame camera. A 17mm (like someone posted above) will look really wide on a full frame, but almost no curve on a non full frame.
So despite the fact that it says fisheye, you won't see a fisheye result on your current camera.
There is also rectilinear lenses that give no barrel curve to the photos, but I don't think I found a good one for non full frame.
Just think of this, your stock lens on your camera is 18mm when open wide, and nearly no curve. Not sure how dramatic of a curve you are looking for, but I doubt you see a difference with a 17mm
The ones I posted above are shot on a 10mm and you can always zoom to 17mm with nearly no curve
- Miguex0
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/Flickr will let you browse photos by camera, select your current model and as tags include "wide angle" and it will show you photos with your camera/ wide lens set up, and on the side info next to the photo you can see the lens used. Just to get an Idea on results.
It helped me a lot, since I bought the lens without trying it first.
- honestIy0
I use a 5D MKI with the 16-35L and get flat straight lines, from what I understand, the 14 listed above retains a flat sense of lines (as opposed to rounded fisheye) as i seek from my 16 and will cover the entire lens (with falloffs in light and focus) which is my point. it covers the lens, it's flat
- *covers the sensorhonestIy
- that's a full frame camera though, non full frames crop your image a bit, so lens are less dramatic than on full frames :)Miguex
- frames :)
a 17mm probably looks really wide on your cameraMiguex - a 14mm * 1.6 crop factor is roughly a 22mm his 20mm would be 32mmhonestIy
- wide flat better during upgradehonestIy
- monNom0
by all accounts, this lens is worth going the extra $100 over budget
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pr…- or.. you can search on google and find it for only $42 over budget :)Miguex
- jaylarson0
@dMullins, what camera do you have?
and to help with language, what do you mean by wide?
"the biz" says that adding in crop factor, under 24mm is considered "uiltra wide"—for which you'll pay a premium, and have more significant distortion.a prime lens might be nice, 24 2.8:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/s…the 16-35 3.5-4.5 is pretty decent too:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/s…
- slappy0
Serious landscape photogs tend to use 50mm or 85mm lenses and stitch the shots together on FF bodies. I would probably look at a 35mm.
It its for travelling (interiors and cityscapes/ally ways etc) then I would go for the sigma 10-22mm.
- jaylarson0
review sites worth reading:
photozone.de
slrgear.com
fredmiranda.com
even mansurovs.com is way better than KR.just be very wary of ken rockwell. he isn't even a photographer, despite the illusions and he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
- Miguex0
I just realized who you are talking about.
I'm pretty sure the only reason people post links to his site is because he comes up in google first, but I doubt anyone here (or anywhere) is a fan of his photography.:)
- in regards of the norm rockwell commentMiguex
- ken, sorry who is norm?Miguex
- http://www.nrm.org/nb
- mnmlst0
Bower is crap. I would highly recommend not buying that. Your best bet might be getting a used 20 2.8. Under 500 for a good wide is tough. Some of the sigma ulra-wides aren't bad for the price, but they are slow.
- zod0
Tokina 12-24 F4. Hands down.