advise on wide angle lens

T

Tekagudun

Messages
176
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
so Ive been to Scotland a few times , and a few times I felt that I needed a wider angle lens,
I currently have the nikkor 24-85g, which ive managed with to be fair, but not ideal
got a trip planned , so thought a wider lens would come in handy
don't want to break the bank, some of the lenses are extortionate
as all my gear is 2nd hand , ill be going that route
weight not an issue, I don't go mountaineering, just a good sharp reliable lens
looked at tokina 16-28 ?
all advise welcome
budget around 350 ish
thanks
 
The 16-28 is a really nice lens. Very well built, right up there with Nikon stuff in that regard. I really liked the images too but it has a couple of drawbacks you should bear in mind. Firstly it doesn't really take filters readily due to bulbous front element and it struggles a lot with flare. The latter bothered me a bit because I'd often shoot city stuff with street lights in shot and I didn't like how the lens dealt with them. You get a sort of traffic light stripe around light sources. Some people quite like it but I'm not a fan. If it's more generaly landscape, you'll likely be fine.

Other lenses worth giving consideration to are the Tamron 15-30, Nikon 20mm 1.8 and Sigma 20mm 1.4. Then there are the Nikon 18-35, 16-35 and 14-24. They all have their pros and cons but all well worthy of consideration.
 
Thanks for the reply
I just thought it was a reasonably priced lens with good reveiws
I'll check the others out
 
Tekagudun said:
Thanks for the reply
I just thought it was a reasonably priced lens with good reveiws
I'll check the others out
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's great value. Feels expensive too. Just thought it best that you know it has a couple of 'features' to be aware of. By the way, worth mentioning that a bulbous front element and no filter thread is quite a common issue with wide and fast lenses. If you never use filters, it doesn't matter but if you do, maybe the Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 are a better bet.

Should have mentioned that I'm waiting patiently for the imminent Tamron 17-35 mk2. It's f/2.8 at the wide end but has a standard filter thread. The mk1 version was an okay lens but Tamron are on great form at them moment and really hoping this second version is superb. Not sure when it's out though.
 
ive seen a 18-35 Nikon 3.5-4.5 d version
I know it doesn't have the vr on it, and its an old lens, which im not bothered about
any one used one ,any feedback
thanks
77mm filter as well
 
Tekagudun said:
ive seen a 18-35 Nikon 3.5-4.5 d version
I know it doesn't have the vr on it, and its an old lens, which im not bothered about
any one used one ,any feedback
thanks
77mm filter as well
Click to expand...

They’re okay but distort in a way that is difficult to correct. Again, fine for landscape. Not so much for cities. Quite small though and good value.
 
I know diddly-squat about Nikon lenses so I won't/can't comment on that. But, in general....

If you are landscaping, I would presume you are on a tripod? VR won't be needed anyway.
I'd also assume you aren't going to be shooting wide open? Most lenses are more than acceptable for home/Flickr/Instagram use when stopped down.
You'd also want to be using a CPL as a minimum I would have thought.

I am well past my wide 17-40L days - 2013/14

I much prefer a longer focal length for landscapes now (28mm & more often than not narrower on A7) If I do need wider or fancy a sweeping panorama, then that's what I do.
 
gad-westy said:
Yeah, it's great value. Feels expensive too. Just thought it best that you know it has a couple of 'features' to be aware of. By the way, worth mentioning that a bulbous front element and no filter thread is quite a common issue with wide and fast lenses. If you never use filters, it doesn't matter but if you do, maybe the Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 are a better bet.

Should have mentioned that I'm waiting patiently for the imminent Tamron 17-35 mk2. It's f/2.8 at the wide end but has a standard filter thread. The mk1 version was an okay lens but Tamron are on great form at them moment and really hoping this second version is superb. Not sure when it's out though.
Click to expand...
You and me both. Mtf charts show better than 15-30 which is already a very good lens.

You haven’t got long to wait. 4/09/18.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-17-35mm-f-2-8-4-di-osd-lens-announced-32552

If all your interested in (and I am) is across the frame sharpness then the Nikon 18-35 ‘el cheapo’ seems to significantly better other lenses even Nikon primes such as the 20 1.8. I’m hoping the Tamron is better still.
 
Last edited:
I've been using a Sigma 21-35 for a couple of years, and really liked it, but wanted to go wider. I recently picked up a Sigma 12-24 HSM for £260, and have been very happy with that. I don't HAVE to use it at 12mm, but if I do then with care the distortion is minimal. Resolution is OK too.

Barn 3 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top