Best 'bang for buck' wide angle lens for Nikon FX?

tintin

tintin

Messages
247
Name
Barnaby Jaco Skinner
Edit My Images
No
Need some help with a landscape lens... not done much wide angle in the past but that was mainly down to having the wrong kit. Now I'm upgrading to FX and I want a nice lens for landscape vistas.

I can't decide on a 20mm or 24mm Nikkor AF-D... will 24mm be wide enough for a decent landscape or should I be looking even wider than 20mm?

Or is 20mm the sweet spot?

I'm not really after a zoom lens so would prefer a prime as it's lighter and will come travelling with me alongside a 50 Prime and a 70-300 so the less footprint the better.

All advice and other suggestions are welcome :)

Cheers

Barney
 
A 20mm f2.8 prime will not dissapoint and offers a little more than the 24mm which seems much more than 4mm when you look through the view finder.
 
I personally don't see the weight difference between a wide zoom and a 20mm to be that significant. The only advantage that I generally see in primes is when they have a wider aperture and that probably isn't relevant to many landscape applications unless you are being creative.

So personally I'd go for a wide zoom in the 12-24mm or possibly 20-35mm type range for the additional convenience of having the ability to zoom and I'd live with the insignificant (to me) increase in weight over a wide-ish prime.

Of course you don't have to have a wide lens for landscapes but I accept that people generally associate landscape with wider lenses.
 
Bang for Buck. Just sold a 18-35 Nikkor for £225. Now that's very good value for a Landscape lens. I had it on FF. Only got rid because although it's a great lens I don't tend to do W I D E
 
There's a Cosina 19-35 which is suitable for FF use (well, it gives full 35mm film coverage, not tried it on FF digital) and IIRC, the Vivitar of the same length is identical (apart from the label).

If you want insanely wide, the Sigma 12-24 is the lens for you! Extremely well corrected as far as barell and pincushion distortion goes but the perspective exageration is quite extreme, as would be expected from a lens this short. It's not light (or cheap).
 
I've heard great things about the 16-35, it's definitely one I'll be looking at when the time comes to go wide.
 
i use my wind angles mostley with hpyerfocal focusing so i wouldnt mind an old AI or AIS myself
so i wont buy a wide angle G lens
 
tintin said:
Is the distortion at 18mm as bad as people make out?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you're shooting -- if you're looking for something for architecture or clear horizons then bang for buck might not be the best critera. ...and, to be fair, this isn't the only wide lens that has complex distortion.

[http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm]
 
Yeah that's what I was thinking. You see the 14-24, 16-35, 17-35 are all great but they're just so expensive and heavy I think I'd be a bit reluctant to drag it around all day, especially as I'll be trekking in hot climates.

I'm thinking the 18-35 might be my best bet although the 24mm AIS prime sounds tasty at that price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top