Wide-angle Lens Upgrade Suggestions

No_Orchestra

Hi everybody,

Long time reader, first time poster (except for a few PAD entries ages ago). I am looking for suggestions for a wide-angle lens to replace the one I'm using right now. Last year I upgraded my D3000 to a D7100. When I bought the 7100, I got the body only and kept the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 3000. I'm looking to eventually upgrade to a nicer wide-angle lens to replace that. What's the best option, in your opinion, in the $1000 range?

Some other info: right now I shoot almost exclusively portrait-type stuff with the 50mm 1.4G. I also have the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G. I do a little bit of landscape shooting on vacations and so forth and would like to get into more of that. My ideal solution for a lens would also be something that's FX compatible for an eventual upgrade, but that's realistically a long while down the road (I would go to the D750 (or equivalent), no higher) and so not a totally necessary condition.

Thoughts? (Thanks, everybody).

sevencrossing

Hi everybody,

My ideal solution for a lens would also be something that's FX compatible for an eventual upgrade,

I would look at AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED

I do not have this lens but I intend to buy one very soon. It gets very good reviews

WestEndFoto

That 20 on a DX camera is not very wide - a 30mm 35mm equivalent - barely wide.

The current selection of wide angles is very limited on DX. There is the zoom for about a thousand which is a good choice, but will not be that useful on FX. I would consider getting the 16-35 f/4. At least you have 24mm 35mm equivalent and when you upgrade to FX you will have all the practical widths covered.

I have the 14-24, 20, 28, 50, 85, 135 and 200. I shoot alot of landscapes and rarely use the 14-24. I use both the 28 and 50 more than the 20. I actually use the 200 quite a bit.

Your shooting style may be different. What I am saying is don’t automatically assume that wider is better for landscapes. For me, my best focal length is the 28.

Hammie

I have the Nikkor 10-24mm lens and love it. Very sharp.

sevencrossing

the 16 -35 or the 14 - 24 are likely to blow your budget
if the 20mm is not wide enough or you want a zoom
I would follow Hammie's advice, get the 10 -24 and trade it in when you upgrade to FX

Photobug

+1 @sevencrossing
Also consider selling that 18-55 and getting the 18-140mm. Unfortunately, you are going to sell it when you move up to FX but that is a long way off...as you said.

Hammie

The 10-24 is "acceptable" on an FX body in FX mode from 14-24. Some vignetting but not to the point where the photo is ruined.

Def not as awesome as the 14-24 f/2.8 lens, but still a decent job.

Ironheart

+1 on the 10-24. It is the go to DX wide angle. I'd like to get my hands on the wide angle sigma to see what that's all about...

kanuck

For DX I think you'd be very happy with some of the wide angles offered by Tokina. They are solid and very sharp. I used the 11-16mm type I back when I was shooting a D300 and I was very impressed with the results at the time. The 14-24 is still king but a complete waste for the money if its on a cropped sensor I think..

Pistnbroke

The standard DX wide has been The Sigma 10-20mm but I found cramming that 100deg wide shot onto DX was not the best for IQ..If using wide is your thing then FX is the way to go at about 15-17mm. I use an old and cheap 17-35mm sigma which with sharpening and contrast adjustment is great on the D800.
If you are looking to replace the 18-55 then the 18-140 at about £200 grey is a great buy ..I find any 18-xxx zoom is not good over 150 on DX and you are better to crop.

spraynpray

I find the 11-16 Tokina to be excellent. I think of ultra-wides more for getting in close rather than cramming more in:

tcole1983

If I was shooting DX I would go for the 10-24. If FX the 14-24.

My thoughts on the Tokina...I had the 12-24 F4 and while built well, focused quickly, and was sharp it had other issues. The CA was terrible in contrasting landscape shots. The lens also I assume because of sub-Nikon coatings had weird ghosting and flare issues. I sold mine after having it for 6 months and got the 17-55 F2.8.

spraynpray

Good points and why I bought the 11-16 f2.8. It has none of those issues. It is a great companion to my 17-55 f2.8.

sevencrossing

No_Orchestra I think we have covered all your options
let us know what you decide

Ironheart

Actually re-reading what the OP wrote I'm not sure we actually answered the question. Everyone, myself included went right to ultra wide. He was looking for an 18-55 replacement. This would the the 17-55 f/2.8 and the siggy 18-35 f/1.8, in that order probably.

JonMcGuffin

Yes, not sure how wide you want to go. At the wide end though planning to keep a lens to an eventual upgrade doesn't make sense quite frankly. Good FX wides would be the Tamton 15-30 2.8 VR, the Tokina 16-28 2.8, the Nikon 18-35, 16-35 and of course the 14-24 2.8. The problem with all these is that they are big, expensive, and frankly none are very wide on a DX camera.

Lenses hold their value really well and Id almost question why you'd ever need to go to FX anyway but assuming you did, you can get 80% of the new cost at resale down the road.

You should really be IMO considering the:
Tokina 11-20mm 2.8 (this is the newest version of their 11-16 spoke highly about above)
Sigma 18-35 1.8 if you're not really needing to go wider than a 24mm equivelent on FF.

Those are honestly the best lenses of the bunch and no slight to the Nikon 10-24 but it doesn't really hold up in any respect to the Tokina.

tcole1983

@JonMcGuffin What leads you to the conclusion about the 10-24? I haven't shot it, but I also haven't heard anything but good things about it. IMO it at least gives you some zoom range, the 11-16 is such a narrow range it makes it very limited to really wide shots. The 10-24 gets you really wide to somewhat not that wide.

But re-reading yes the OP isn't really asking about ultrawides...just wide angle lenses. The problem with getting something in the lower focal lengths is the difference in view of FX vs DX. 24 isn't wide enough on DX in lots of cases. As the 24-70 although out of the $1000 budget is the FX replacement for the 18-55. You could have to look at a third party lens to get in the right price range. Something like the 24-120 F4 might be a good option that would go into FX, but still sits at 24. Several of the wider angle FX lenses have a very limited zoom range, so to me they aren't that practical especially if hoping to use it as a walk around lens such as the 18-55 when eventually shooting FX. My only other suggestion might be something like the newer 24-85, but not certain it would be any better...just compatible with FX down the road.

Ryukyu

I've heard good things about the Tokina 11-20 f2.8, but wish that it had retained a 77mm filter size instead of 82mm.

Ironheart

Frankly, the new 18-55 VR2 isn't too shabby, and considering the ISO capability of the OP's D7100, and unless you need shallow DoF, meets the needs with money left over for a 35 f/1.8 DX, and a 50mm f/1.8 which are plenty shallow.

WestEndFoto

I've heard good things about the Tokina 11-20 f2.8, but wish that it had retained a 77mm filter size instead of 82mm.

Then it would probably be a 11-20 f4.0.

spraynpray

I've heard good things about the Tokina 11-20 f2.8, but wish that it had retained a 77mm filter size instead of 82mm.

In all the time I've had my 11-16 (6 years I think), I have never wanted to put any kind of filter on it so I don't worry about that. What kind of filters would you want to put on it? I'm just interested in your usage.

Ryukyu

Possibly a circular polarizer or a variable ND.

Ryukyu

Then it would probably be a 11-20 f4.0.

I could live with that.

JonMcGuffin

So it's not that there is anything "wrong" with the 10-24, it's just that the 11-20 is much faster, cheaper and oh, it's reviewed a lot better as well.

24mm on DX gives a FOV in the 35mm and that's just not wide, at all. The 82mm thing may be a bit limiting but honestly, that lens is priced so well and performs so well if you really need to buy a set of filters for it for $60-$120 so what, you're still at a very good value. 11-20 on the DX body gives about 16-30mm and at a nice fast 2.8 aperture that more than makes up for the ISO deficiencies between FX and DX do the Nikon, to me, is just the odd man out no matter how you look at it.

Ryukyu

The 82mm thing may be a bit limiting but honestly, that lens is priced so well and performs so well if you really need to buy a set of filters for it for $60-$120 so what, you're still at a very good value.

Well if you have a 77mm $130 circular polarizer and a $400 Variable ND filter already, wouldn't you rather not have to spend that again for a different size? That ends up costing almost as much as the lens itself.

WestEndFoto

Buy step up rings to your largest lens diameter and filters for that. For me that is 77mm. I don't bother putting a filter on my 14-24. I use my 20mm ais when I ant to use a filter.