Needing a Wide-Angle

HomeInMyShoes · #1 Posted **Feb 4, 2007, 3:21 PM**

Anyone currently use any of the following lenses? Any comments, opinions? Other options I should be considering? I'd be sticking it onto a Nikon D50.

Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G AF DX Nikkor
Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 AF S Nikkor
Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor
Tamron SP 17-35 F/2.8
Tamron SP 17-50 F/2.8

The only negative I've read so far is the Tamron 17-50 is prone to excessive vignetting so it's probably out of my equation and then the usual build quality comments on the Nikon 18-35. If going down the Tamron path, I would be tempted by the Nikon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G DX Nikkor which is pretty much free in comparison to the f/2.8s in the Nikon line.

Lexy · #2 Posted **Feb 4, 2007, 3:27 PM**

Those are all good lens' for the money no doubt. I, personally, use Sigma lenses due to their picture quality capabilities. But personal preference is huge when it comes to lenses. Cost is the other major factor. If you want my honest opinon, don't limit your choices and research, research, research within your price range. Any Nikon lens is good IMO.

MJPhilly · #3 Posted **Feb 4, 2007, 6:06 PM**

Which lens(es) do you have now?

Upward · #4 Posted **Feb 4, 2007, 6:14 PM**

Also consider the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5. I've read good things about it, and I almost bought one (for Canon) and sometimes regret having not...

HomeInMyShoes · #5 Posted **Feb 5, 2007, 3:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJPhilly

Which lens(es) do you have now?

Nikon 50mm F/1.4
Nikon 28-80 F4.5-5.6

I don't really use tele very much, even on my old Minolta X700 (28-70 and 100-200 floating around), so I'm leaning to something covering the range from 17/18 to around 35 or 50, but if it's the right lens fixed works.

I'll have to check out the Sigmas.

WonderlandPark · #6 Posted **Feb 5, 2007, 3:30 AM**

I have the Tamron 17-50 on a full frame Canon, it really doesn't vignette excessively.

flar · #7 Posted **Feb 5, 2007, 12:46 PM**

I'm using the Nikon 18-55 that came with my D50, I like it fine. If you end up looking at this lens, be sure to get revision II. It's essentially the same as the first version, but the hollow feeling plastic on the zoom ring has been replaced with something sturdier.

Robert Pence · #8 Posted **Feb 5, 2007, 1:14 PM**

I have the Nikkor 18-70mm DX ED AF-S 3.5-4.5G lens that came in the D70 kit, and I'm very happy with it. There's mild barrel distortion at the edges of the frame at the shortest focal length, but I've usually been able to correct it in Photoshop without much difficulty. It's sharp and has a sturdy look and feel, and it seems to be just about the perfect range for general-purpose use.

HomeInMyShoes · #9 Posted **Feb 5, 2007, 11:22 PM**

Good information guys. Lots of other options out there that weren't on my radar. I completely forgot about Sigma.

Anyone using a superwide? Something like:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

MJPhilly · #10 Posted **Feb 7, 2007, 12:42 AM**

If you already have a 28-80 I don't think you'll really be that excited by an 18-35 or 18-55. It's not going to give you that much more range. If you have it in the budget, I would recommend getting a superwide.

I have a Canon 10-22 and it's a lot of fun. It can be used badly, but it makes great photos when done right. I think Giovanni Sasso is using one also. I can direct you to some shots I took from that lens if you like.

HomeInMyShoes · #11 Posted **Feb 7, 2007, 1:01 AM**

I'm not worried about range. I just need something that I can fit larger buildings and landscapes into. I've been having a ton-o-fun just wandering with my 50mm and don't rely on range to compose that much anymore.

I think I'm definitely leaning towards the super-wide. If I can just find a camera store in Saint Louis to try some stuff out.

MJPhilly · #12 Posted **Feb 8, 2007, 3:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I'm not worried about range. I just need something that I can fit larger buildings and landscapes into. I've been having a ton-o-fun just wandering with my 50mm and don't rely on range to compose that much anymore.

I think I'm definitely leaning towards the super-wide. If I can just find a camera store in Saint Louis to try some stuff out.

I guess I didn't mean range as in zoom range, I meant wideness. Meaning that if the 28 mm isn't wide enough, you're probably not going to be that impressed by the 18 mm. I used only a Sigma 18-200 for over a year, and while the 18 mm usually did the job, it didn't have the WOW factor of the superwide.

Lately I still take probably 80% of my shots with the 18-200, but about 50% of the ones that I wind up putting on my website come from the superwide.

malek · #13 Posted **Feb 8, 2007, 4:53 AM**

i have the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 for its price, you can't go wrong.

used with 20D.

HomeInMyShoes · #14 Posted **Mar 2, 2007, 9:47 PM**

I think I may have found what I'm looking for:

Tokina 10-17mm

But, nope it's a fisheye which I don't really want. Dang. The Sigma gets crappy reviews for build quality, but excellent for use as a wide-angle and the Tokina 12-24 which looks very good doesn't go to 10.

HomeInMyShoes · #15 Posted **Jun 2, 2007, 2:15 PM**

Search is over. Lens has arrived.

Tokina 12-24mm.

Some random test shots from this morning. I'm really going to have to work with this for a while before I get a vocabulary down. Much more hit and miss than I'm used to compositionally.

staff · #16 Posted **Jun 2, 2007, 4:14 PM**

Congratulations on the new lens, HIMS!
Shooting ultra-wide is really tricky in the beginning. I've owned my Sigma 10-20mm for a year now, and I still find it hard to compose the shots. You often tend to go much wider than you need, just because "you can" - so I guess my best tip is to not be afraid of shooting at the "less wide end" (sorry, my English is so bad) of the lens - 17-18mm is still pretty wide, even on a non-full frame camera.

I was aware of the problems with the Sigma lenses (some tend to be blurred in the right part of the frame at certain settings) when I bought mine, so I tried it for a week and made sure it was okay.

Here are some of my ultra-wide shots (that I'm pretty happy with):

Good luck!

HomeInMyShoes · #17 Posted **Jun 2, 2007, 9:20 PM**

Your English is good Staff. Completely understandable and well-phrased.

Those are all really nice. The only issue I see with your Sigma is a little blip of a curve in the lower right of the second photo. I have dreams of subject matter like that.

I was really pushing the garbage through the lens today. Trying to push flaring and such. Overall, I'm pretty happy. Need to push some more straight lines at the low end just to see how bad it will distort, but as you said, 12 is probably more than I need for 95% of cases anyway so I should probably back off to 13 or 14 anyway. Probably need to make another trip downtown soon.

staff · #18 Posted **Jun 2, 2007, 9:31 PM**

^^
Yeah the distortion is certainly notable in some of the shots - but I think that's hard to avoid. It's still a 10mm lens afterall. That is pretty extreme!

The 12mm Tokina might be better in that sense.

HomeInMyShoes · #19 Posted **Jun 2, 2007, 11:54 PM**

For sure. I was pretty tempted by 10mm. I mean, 10, really that's insane.

SomeFormOFhuman · #20 Posted **Jun 7, 2007, 2:43 AM**

Oh man if you were to even talk about the 10mm, yeah it's pretty insane... I bought it back in February 2007, and yeah so far, I haven't been able to get my hands off this wonderful yet fun lens!!

You should probably see some photos that I have taken over the months all right here below. Well the first few pictures are showing my apartment in Singapore where I live, the rest are well... How should I put it, miscellaenous?