£400 wide angle budget (Nikon fit), what to get?

ukaskew

ukaskew

Messages
3,839
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Any thoughts? Getting Christmas money from everyone this year so thought I would add a wide angle to my line up as I'm a little on the long side at the moment (Nikon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 50-150 2.8 and Sigma 120-300 2.8), body is a Nikon D90.

I had a Sigma 10-20 for a year but it was the first thing to go when I was skint a while back, I probably 'need' wide angle about 6 or 7 times per year max and I've not missed it too much in the past 8 or so months, but it's always nice to have.

Budget is around £400, but I always buy second hand where possible so can probably manage something that costs a little more than that brand new.

As far as I can tell, these are the obvious options:

Sigma 10-20
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Nikon 12-24 f4

and from leftfield, a Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye, which I've always had a bit of thing for, and could be very interesting as I've been getting into the video side of the D90 quite a bit lately.

Never had any issues with the Sigma 10-20, so that's currently top of the list, but thought it was best to consider everything else as well. Basically, heart says Fisheye, head says ultra wide angle.
 
ruvor said:
Out of that list, I would almost certainly got for the Tokina 11-16mm. Fast, sharper, better.
Click to expand...

Even Ken Rockwell loves it! Have done lots of research into that lens today, really tempting but it's creeping over budget slightly brand new and I'm very very unlikely to find one second-hand.

Long term it's probably the better option than the 10-20, and it would keep my entire set up at f2.8 or faster, which would be nice because I probably wouldn't feel the need to upgrade in the future ;)
 
Wide angle or wide angle zoom ?

I've gone off superwides, the 10's-11's-12's are just too warped, might as well go the whole hog and go fisheye.
Or get something with less distortion, if you decide stay away from the 10's to 12's....is there any real need for a zoom ?....if not, a 20mm prime is right up there with the best of em.
 
joxby said:
Wide angle or wide angle zoom ?

I've gone off superwides, the 12's and the 10's are just too warped, might as well go the whole hog and go fisheye.
Or get something with less distortion, if you decide stay away from the 10's and 12's....is there any real need for a zoom ?....if not, a 20mm prime is right up there with the best of em.
Click to expand...

Not really sure, did briefly look at 20mm primes but wasn't sure if that would be a little too long, would probably be ok for the limited use it would get.

In that case...

Sigma 20mm f1.8 (£280)
Nikon 20mm f2.8 (£340)

If the Sigma is good enough that would be very good news, as I could probably save enough to get the Nikon 10.5 Fisheye second-hand within a few months.
 
DiddyDave said:
I just got the Nikon 10.5 mm for £324 - awesome beastie - but then I use the DxO so I can un-fisheye it too when I want to

Other than that, I love my Nikon 12-24 too

DD
Click to expand...

New or second-hand? I've seen a few on MPB Photographic around that price now and again.
 
another consideration - if you are doing landscapes, have a look at the older PC nikkors, you can use them to make low distortion stitched panoramics.
 
Hmm I have never been sure about fisheyes. Im sure they would be fun, but for me the ultra wide angle would be top of the list. What are you going to use the lens for?

Agree though that the video recording with a fisheye could be cool.
 
I use the sigma 10-20 btw, and rate that well. Used more than I thought on my latest trip to Scotland.
 
You might be tempted to go with the Nikon 10.5 mm fisheye f/2.8 paired with Image Trends software (about $30 US; available online). This gives you a very flexible ultrawide angle lens...so you can go for the fisheye look, or straighten things out. I'll try to post a couple of examples later.
 
hunter20ga said:
You might be tempted to go with the Nikon 10.5 mm fisheye f/2.8 paired with Image Trends software (about $30 US; available online). This gives you a very flexible ultrawide angle lens...so you can go for the fisheye look, or straighten things out. I'll try to post a couple of examples later.
Click to expand...

That would be good to see actually(y)
 
devitt said:
Hmm I have never been sure about fisheyes. Im sure they would be fun, but for me the ultra wide angle would be top of the list. What are you going to use the lens for?

Agree though that the video recording with a fisheye could be cool.
Click to expand...

Main uses will be on holiday really, so used for wandering around New York etc, and the occasional static car shoot. The only time my 10-20 came out to play was for holidays and car shoots. I think a fisheye would be used sparingly, so certainly shouldn't be on my list ahead of some sort of wide angle lens...that said I would really like the 10.5 one day!

The Sigma 20mm 1.8 has jumped onto my radar big time now though, really intrigued by it and a brief look at reviews seems to suggest it's pretty good.
 
If you're gonna be wandering around in cities, I would put some real consideration into getting a pc-nikkor. they are exactly what is needed for taking photos of tall buildings a things.
 
Could I throw the Sigma 12-24 into the options list? With FF Nikons now being a reality, this is one of the (very) few UWAs that covers the full 35mm frame. It's not quite as wide as the 10mm on Dx sensors but you'd need an 8mm rectilinear lens (on a Dx body) to match its wide capability on Fx or 35mm. Very well corrected as far as distortion at both ends too.

Another option which doesn't seem to be in your bag at the moment is the 18-70 kit lens. Not the fastest lens made but a pretty good performer for the price, especially 2nd hand!
 
ukaskew said:
Not really sure, did briefly look at 20mm primes but wasn't sure if that would be a little too long
Click to expand...

Its not super wide on a crop compared with the 10 11 12's, but that is what we're used to seeing these days as a w i d e angle.
I think that range is a bit, I dunno, fun but gimmicky, not entirely useful.
A fisheye has a specific use, a wide has a specific use, the super wides are so distorted they are past wide, but don't fill the fisheyes boots.
I bought a sig 10-20, it was only good for lol dog shots at 10 and slow as a slug in treacle at 20, I sold it on.
Its only my opinion, sometimes you just have to try them yourself first to form an opinion, whatever happens, you won't lose much money on them, if any(y)
 
hunter20ga said:
You might be tempted to go with the Nikon 10.5 mm fisheye f/2.8 paired with Image Trends software (about $30 US; available online). This gives you a very flexible ultrawide angle lens...so you can go for the fisheye look, or straighten things out. I'll try to post a couple of examples later.
Click to expand...

Here are some examples... photos 1-4 are meant only to show what Image Trends can do with a fisheye image...they certainly aren't artistic shots. Images 5-7 show some of the flexibility of the 10.5 mm fisheye.

1. Hotel room photographed with 10.5 mm fisheye, no correction applied.
HotelRoom1.jpg


2. Image Trends software used to remove distortion.
HotelRoom2.jpg


3. Chicago skyline, 10.5 mm fisheye, no correction applied.
1ChicagoSkyline.jpg


4. Image Trends software used to remove distortion.
2ChicagoSkyline.jpg


5. Blend of two photos. Photo 1, sky & clouds taken with 10.5 mm fisheye (no correction applied) and photo 2, turkey vulture taken with 80-400 mm telephoto near 400 mm.
DizzyBird.jpg


6. Trees overhead, taken with 10.5 mm fisheye, no correction applied.
TreesOverhead.jpg


7. Tree on Georgetown University campus, 10.5 mm fisheye, Image Trends correction applied.
SpreadingChestnutTree2copy.jpg
 
Im surprised by those photos hunter. I thought the uncorrected shots are less distorted/fisheye than I expected them to be. Cracking photos, and the bird shot is very well executed imo:)

Oh and thanks for taking the time to upload these example for us(y)
 
Hmmm... these lenses do have an appeal, but I can't see past the distortion, which admittedly can be used to good effect sometimes, but I think it would bug me loads.

It makes that 16mm Zeiss Hologon for the Contax, even more tempting for a genuine 16mm on full frame and zippo distortion! :nuts:
 
devitt said:
Im surprised by those photos hunter. I thought the uncorrected shots are less distorted/fisheye than I expected them to be. Cracking photos, and the bird shot is very well executed imo:)

Oh and thanks for taking the time to upload these example for us(y)
Click to expand...

With the fisheye, I find it critical (much more so than with rectilinear lenses) to keep the lens square to the horizon if you want to minimize the barrel distortion. The more distortion you want, the more you can play with horizons and so forth. Also, figures close to the lens are distorted more than those at a distance; those close to the center of the image are distorted less than those at the edges.
 
So confused...really great advice but so many options! Heart still says Nikon 10.5, especially as I could use correction software to straighten up the occasional shot as well, hmmmm. Doesn't seem like a lens that would lose me a lot of money if I hated it and decided to sell either, so probably worth a risk.

Will sleep on it I think.
 
I thought the 10.5mm fisheye would be more "distorted" than it is. As I looked through DiddyDaves & took a couple of pics with it, on his camera.
But the fact that you can also use it with the correction software, is great also :D

And the fact it is within your budget then superb (y) Just really does depend if you want a wide, or a wide-zoom :)
 
Followed my heart...Nikon 10.5 Fisheye :)

All being well I've got the one from the classified section here, can't wait.

Cheers for all the help as always.
 
You won't regret it, if you want an ultra wide angle there's none better, you won't lose money if you want to sell either, they always make £300+ as they're quite rare secondhand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top