Good wide angle options for Nikon DX cameras?

gilbouk

gilbouk

Messages
3,432
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm a man who loves detail and with my recent change to Nikon I'm missing my SAL1650 f2.8 on my A6300 for landscapes and wide angle shots.

34150268106_b896d24968_c.jpg

FSC06644-HDR by Gilbo B - Flickr2BBcode LITE

With the Nikon D500, I'm finding the crop factor greater than the Sony A6300 so my Nikon 35mm seems closer than I'm used to.

Currently I'm looking at contenders in the Nikon world that will satisfy my obsession with detail and give me a nice wide angle for landscapes. I'd prefer some zoom ability for versatility.

Can anybody recommend any of the below? Any examples taken with the lens would be fantastic. If there are any worthy contenders both old and new I've missed I'd also be keen to find out about them too.

Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM
Nikon AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 ED
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX
Tokina 12-28mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
 
Last edited:
That SAL 16-50/2.8 is a very good reason to shoot Sony ;)
Its very hard to beat that lens and especially at that price point.

There is also a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 C which is pretty good. If you want wider the Tokina 11-16mm is really very nice but there is a new tokina 11-20mm also.
Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 is sharp corner to corner if you get a good copy. I know someone who went through 3 copies to get a good one.
I believe there is also going to be a new tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5.
And if you need pure speed and quality the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is a bag of primes.
 
Last edited:
Sigma 10-20 or the 18-35 1.8 art lens! Best crop lens I Ever owned! It's beautiful
 
lightshipman said:
When I had a Nikon D7100 it was the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 for me, excellent lens. I still have a sigma uv filter to fit this lens if you buy one.
Click to expand...

I could never see the point of the 3.5..... imo I never used mine wide open for landscapes and the 82mm filter size was a pain as my other lenses were 77mm as the other 10-20 is
 
Mark twiglet said:
I could never see the point of the 3.5..... imo I never used mine wide open for landscapes and the 82mm filter size was a pain as my other lenses were 77mm as the other 10-20 is
Click to expand...
I agree about the 82mm filter screw size, been trying to sell my 82mm filters for 3 months now. Not much call for them.
 
Bit long in the tooth but has stood the test of time - Nikon 12-24 all the way. Thanks for my trip to memory lane on our Honeymoon (seems like it was my 'standard lens' in Italy) :)
Anyway, some examples on a D200..

Control of lens flare is excellent - one of the few lenses I was sorry to see go but a move to FX meant I had to sell it.

venice_1sm.jpg



venice_2sm.jpg


venice_3sm.jpg


venice_4sm.jpg
 
I cannot recommend the 11-16 2.8 tokina highly enough. Its really wide for DX, takes 77mm filters, optically fantastic (i in fact used it for about a year on my d750 full frame at 16mm).

While i admit 2.8 isn't that useful for everyday shooting, its brilliant if you ever get the opportunity to shoot the night sky :D

It won't cost the earth either, I think the newer version simply has a focus motor in it, with your 500 you would be able to pick up the slightly earlier version and save a few more £££s
 
Or if you want really wide why not get a great copy of the Sam yang 14mm 2.8! I love mine on fx
 
I used to have the Sony 10-20mm. When it got smashed in an accident I took the opportunity to upgrade to the Sigma 8-16mm, more expensive, much bigger and heavier, and optically a bit better as well as very usefully wider. Architecturally a 90 degrees view angle is an important threshold. On the usual 1.5 crop sensor the Sigma 10-20mm at 10mm struggles when jammed into a corner to catch some slight indication of each of the four walls of a room, whereas the Sigma 8-16mm manages it easily without having to be jammed into the corner, with room for correcting lens geometry, perspective, etc.. Unlike the 10-20mm it's difficult (not impossible) to fit filters on it, due to the very bulbous front lens.

I don't often use the 8mm for landscapes unless I want to emphasize a very large dramatic sky or some very close foreground element, but I use it a lot for cityscapes and buildings.
 
Got the siggy 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM and its great.
plenty for sale on the used market too. didnt really see the need in the f3.5

Just dont try to buy a spare lens hood for it from japan... lol
 
Lots of food for thought, thanks to everbody who's replied.

Coming from the Sony SAL1650, what would be the closest equivalent in terms of focal length range on a Nikon DX

Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4.0 looks like another option worth considering albeit not as wide as the lenses discussed.
 
Last edited:
Gil Bev said:
Lots of food for thought, thanks to everbody who's replied.

Coming from the Sony SAL1650, what would be the closest equivalent in terms of focal length range on a Nikon DX

Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4.0 looks like another option worth considering albeit not as wide as the lenses discussed.
Click to expand...

SAL 16-50mm is hard to beat in terms of quality and build at its price point.

there is a nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. this lens (and also the canon equivalent for that matter) is not as sharp as the sony especially at the long end. Even at the wider end they don't quite match Sony in corners stopped down. This is one of the few lenses that Sony got it right in terms of price, quality and build.

never used or read about nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 so i can't say much. the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 'C' is a very decent lens.
 
i really like the tokina 11-16. its super sharp when stopped down and can be had second hand for not much money (if you dont want to spend big money on a lens that might not get used all the time)

Im using one on the d500 and while its not got a nice silent motor its decent build and image quality make up for it.

just for detail purposes
zfFTQ8hmVoBRdL0hPzxxF312Fi5fK8as8CAeyXov0JmR_urRh8p58H5s2XRDSTCBWy2Qa3solVXTSSp1XwT1SRTqtAseJFKg5LfSVB3j7Ps-IFlZCHbUB5Cwpt7kWRcqlslJ8Y9GsYANuOHerL7ned3uD_pjf25UpawC92pGTDKNWp5IBrsHzrYxtn4nEeVKZy1stHj7BLLzd6dzTkPiI3yLTG33pSKH7UR6BgeC6yjxbDuIc44GnZnCdQgbQhLFUj6ExlCncpdDn0UcZ_5P8gNFOR0VNyLG2bEXpZxCeMNgZ4voWTDHEBHlvPXJLCYxdhrlDdfU0TDf6IFtMQt4hG6AR3dSwGwkbV9_S-y0exEc7cV75xlEjjTSvN4vw4_vHa_9bdra4Uaz-U2xV9KCrUdilLdpkbDv6xF8nI7NLulbgmHrkBpvsR43r3fYMHi_Ki_xEdYA6wNnDOgllkenkaCjdlCdwDP004koeqx3QyHifhkd3T2x4HHQDjZrRUIwMJMlYPRqp_ijLoc-kO1DJBr_DO8RLjecxl4YgNHu5gQTnXRiXyua6HBcrWBZ2nsElJxQ_kwiz2QRVyWEnuTjH2PC3WQhz-0-RYp6FjwKeU86eDEqT0u1rA=w1477-h984-no
 
Last edited:
Gil Bev said:
Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX
Nikon DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm F/4.0 AF-S G IF ED
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM
Nikon AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 ED
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX
Tokina 12-28mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Click to expand...

You left a Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 out of the list assuming you were making a comprehensive list.
 
The tokina 11-20 is supposed to be about the same image quality wise as the 11-16 but it's more expensive.

I forgot to mention that there are 2 versions of the 11-16. The first has no internal motor so it relies on the bodies screwdrive motor (if your body has one) the DX II version has an internal motor and a slightly different coating. Im using the DX II which was <£280 on ebay.
 
And you mention you liked your 16-50 on the a6300. The a6300 has the same 1.5x crop factor as the d500 so do you really want an ultra wide or would something like the nikon 17-55 2.8 be a better all round lens? (it's my most used by far)
 
I have DX sensor Nikon cameras and use the 10.5mm Nikkor lens designed specifically for DX. Very good lens, nice and sharp. £300 used on eBay or the various secondhand dealers or £570ish New from Grays Of Westminster.
 
I have the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 and while I don't open it wide majority of the time it is extremely helpful for shooting the northern lights or the Milky Way.
 
RichardMills said:
And you mention you liked your 16-50 on the a6300. The a6300 has the same 1.5x crop factor as the d500 so do you really want an ultra wide or would something like the nikon 17-55 2.8 be a better all round lens? (it's my most used by far)
Click to expand...
I am thinking that that some thing similar to the range of the 16-50 might be better to start with, with maybe a tokina or sigma lens in addition later with the shorter focal length if required.

Problem is, that with the D500 I'm finding everything closer that on the A6300. My 35mm Nikkor seems way closer than what I was expecting comparing it to the sigma 30mm prime I had. I can't use it to take portraits of people with food on holiday for example. Also my Tamron 150 - 600 has a further reach compared when mounted with an adaptor on the Sony a6300 (which I'm not complaining about [emoji4])

I'm not sure the reason behind the differences, but my concern is that something similar to the 16-50 might not have a wide enough angle. I might have to make do with 2 lenses instead of 1, and just learn how to change them more quickly and more easily when I'm on the move.
 
Just out of interest, why did you switch to Nikon?

I can't explain the different crop factor as both should be x1.5, perhaps its a difference in the viewfinder magnification.
 
Of course there will be a difference if you compare 30mm on A6300 to 35mm on D500. The field of view is 45mm vs. 53mm which is a fair bit of difference.
 
Nawty said:
Just out of interest, why did you switch to Nikon?

I can't explain the different crop factor as both should be x1.5, perhaps its a difference in the viewfinder magnification.
Click to expand...
My main interest is Birding with landscapes coming second. I just couldn't get the AF performance on the a6300 with adapted lenses. I kept missing shots due to hunting and many of my birding shots were out of focus with no way to fine tune adapted lenses either. In hindsight I maybe should have gone for a sigma 150-600 on the Sony which I understand you can fine tune using a usb dock.

Hopefully I'll be equally as happy with landscape shooting when I find a suitable lens for my d500. I've been really happy with the results so far with my recent visit to RSPB Bempton Cliffs.

33535343924_ee481322f8_c.jpg

GSC_1476 by Gilbo B - Flickr2BBcode LITE
 
how about the nikon 16-85. its a pretty good lens and can be had second hand for very reasonable money. if you want to spend more the 16-80 is a better lens, or as i suggested above the 17-55 is great. (i payed just over £400 for mine used).

I dont find 35mm very wide at all so i can see why you are struggling. I tried using a 24-70 on the d500 for a bit and even at 24 i was missing the wide end a lot.
 
Gil Bev said:
Problem is, that with the D500 I'm finding everything closer that on the A6300. My 35mm Nikkor seems way closer than what I was expecting comparing it to the sigma 30mm prime I had. I can't use it to take portraits of people with food on holiday for example. Also my Tamron 150 - 600 has a further reach compared when mounted with an adaptor on the Sony a6300 (which I'm not complaining about [emoji4])
Click to expand...
does the adaptor not change he field of view at all? which adapter was it?
 
nandbytes said:
Of course there will be a difference if you compare 30mm on A6300 to 35mm on D500. The field of view is 45mm vs. 53mm which is a fair bit of difference.
Click to expand...
That's a good point!!
 
RichardMills said:
how about the nikon 16-85. its a pretty good lens and can be had second hand for very reasonable money. if you want to spend more the 16-80 is a better lens, or as i suggested above the 17-55 is great. (i payed just over £400 for mine used).

I dont find 35mm very wide at all so i can see why you are struggling. I tried using a 24-70 on the d500 for a bit and even at 24 i was missing the wide end a lot.
Click to expand...
Yes, my 35mm was just a lens I purchased to tide me over until I can afford a better landscape lens. The extra range does sound so attractive as it would mean I can still get a bit of extra reach closing in on the shorter end of my 150-600. I'm going to take a close look at examples on flickr and see how sharp they are.

I'm undecided how much I'm going to want to spend, I've a few things to sell on eBay including my Nikon 35mm but after this purchase, I'm done!!
RichardMills said:
out of interest what lens are you using on the d500 for birding?
Click to expand...
Tamron 150-600 (original one)
 
LA-EA3 doesn't change field of view or have any effect on IQ. Same applies for LA-EA4 except you lose 1/2 stop light.
 
I'm a bit hard for cash, so have decided to go for one of the cheaper options for now - with a hope to get a sigma 18-35 at some point as a walk around lens. Who knows - this lens and my 35mm might keep me satisfied for some time to come :)

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/sigma-10-20-4-5-5-6-hsm-ex-dx-still-for-sale.653201/

Seems a good deal, and has been recommended by a few on here as a good option for me. Going to see how I get on with it - hopefully get it before by surprise birthday weekend away next week.
 
Last edited:
After using the 10-20 for a while, the sharpness of my copy wasn't particularly good with the left-side of all my pictures looking slightly out of focus. In the end I sold it and went for the Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR. Expensive I know, but I'm very happy with the results I've been getting. Here are some shots I took on my holiday to Tenby and surrounding earlier this month.

GSC_7231 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
GSC_7221 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
GSC_7208 by Gilbo B, on FlickrGSC_7185 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
GSC_6928 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
GSC_6913 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
GSC_6593 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
GSC_6449 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
 
chuckles said:
Bit long in the tooth but has stood the test of time - Nikon 12-24 all the way. Thanks for my trip to memory lane on our Honeymoon (seems like it was my 'standard lens' in Italy) :)
Anyway, some examples on a D200..

<snip>
Click to expand...

Another vote for the Nikon - it's sharp all the way through its range, very well built and there are plenty on the used market for sensible money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top