DX wide angle selection

DaveyJ

I have many of these lens. My favorites are the Sigma 10-20 DX on my D7100 and D7200. The Nikkor 12-24 I now use primarily in a time lapse set up. It is a good lens. My primary lens right now is the new 16-80 Nikon which is amazing! I have a 17-55. A tough lens. I also have an older 20-35 2.8 which I use on Nikon FX cameras as a primary lens. There are many scenes like the Acadia view at Acadia from Thunderhole on the Park Loop which Msmoto posted. Often you will need very wide to get the shot. When I walk to a vista like the Acadia view she posted I would go to my vantage point with both the D7100 and D7200 with the 10-20 Sigma and the 16-80 new Nikon. If I had along my FX Nikon DSLR I would take the 20-35 2.8 which for me long ago replaced a lot of prime lens.

brownie314

If you don't have the DX 35mm/1.8 - you must do nothing else before you get this lens. It is cheap and fantastic for DX.
Other than that - don't get me started on DX prme lens selection.

NSXTypeR

The DX 35mm 1.8 is indeed a good lens, but nowhere near wide enough for his uses. There's a lot of more expensive FX wide angle primes now, the 24mm and 20mm 1.8 seem like good choices if he wanted primes.

brownie314

No, not quite wide enough. BUT - it is so cheap I can't imagine anyone owning Nikon DX without owning this lens. It is about 50mm equiv. which most people should be able to put to good use.

heartyfisher

No, not quite wide enough. BUT - it is so cheap I can't imagine anyone owning Nikon DX without owning this lens. It is about 50mm equiv. which most people should be able to put to good use.

Never had one :-) .. had a look but its just that little bit too long for DX (for me)

The old and new sigma 30mm F1.4 was attractive though. and the new 28mmF1.8. I almost, almost, almost bought one but the seller pulled out ...

May still get it if I find a good deal.

The 35 DX is good value though for people who will use it ..

esquilo

The DX 35mm 1.8 is indeed a good lens, but nowhere near wide enough for his uses. There's a lot of more expensive FX wide angle primes now, the 24mm and 20mm 1.8 seem like good choices if he wanted primes.

I had the 35 mm f/1,8 DX, but I sold it. It was not wide enough for a normal, let alone for a wide angle lens that was requested in this thread. The diagonal of an APS-C sensor is 28 mm, so I now use Nikon 28 mm f/1,8 G instead. There is no reason whatsoever not to put a FX lens on a DX body.

WestEndFoto

The DX 35mm 1.8 is indeed a good lens, but nowhere near wide enough for his uses. There's a lot of more expensive FX wide angle primes now, the 24mm and 20mm 1.8 seem like good choices if he wanted primes.

I had the 35 mm f/1,8 DX, but I sold it. It was not wide enough for a normal, let alone for a wide angle lens that was requested in this thread. The diagonal of an APS-C sensor is 28 mm, so I now use Nikon 28 mm f/1,8 G instead. There is no reason whatsoever not to put a FX lens on a DX body.

But are you not doing exactly that? Putting an FX lens on a DX body? What am I missing?

BVS

I have the Tokina 12-28 and have something of a love/hate relationship with it. Under controlled/test situations it's decently sharp, but when I use it (for real?) outdoors sometimes I'll get good shots and many times not. Of course my 'technique' (or lack thereof) may be partly (or mostly) to blame. Typically I'm running around with a 2 year old, so using a tripod is out of the question and everything is handheld. I try to keep as still as possible, but I guess that's not enough.

As with many Tokinas, this lens has ghosting/flare problems. If the sun is near your frame you can end up with a severely washed out image. I always use the lens hood but it's sometimes not enough.

The focal range is nice. 12mm is wide enough for what I do, and 28mm makes it useful as a normal lens. One interesting thing is that the lens will also work on FX cameras from about 18/19mm - 28mm, so it could still be useful if you move to FX one day.

Build quality is good. It's a solid hunk of metal and glass. Of course, that can also be a con if you like to travel light. It's 19oz, which I guess is pretty light by FX standards, but it's the heaviest lens I have and I'm hesitant to take it with me unless I know I'm really going to need that focal range a lot. To be honest, since getting the 18-140 it doesn't get as much use as it used to. But again, I'm mostly chasing kids around and not doing serious landscapes.

Bottom line, I'd look at renting it before you buy if you can and see if you like it or not. It's got enough quirks that I can't recommend it without reservation. If I had to do it again I'd try some other lenses as well to compare.

BVS

Also, Nikon USA is doing a 10% off refurb sale right now (ending today), so the 10-24 is about $630 before tax. I'm not sure how good the lens is though.

Also, the 28mm 1.8 is $495 and the 85mm 1.8 (nice portrait lens) is $350.

Ironheart

There is no reason whatsoever not to put a FX lens on a DX body.

But are you not doing exactly that? Putting an FX lens on a DX body? What am I missing?

Double negative. There is no reason not to do something means you should do it ;-)

WestEndFoto

There is no reason whatsoever not to put a FX lens on a DX body.

But are you not doing exactly that? Putting an FX lens on a DX body? What am I missing?

Double negative. There is no reason not to do something means you should do it ;-)

Duh, don't tell anybody that English is my first language.

Ironheart

"I only speak two languages, English and bad English" - Korben Dallas

esquilo

But are you not doing exactly that? Putting an FX lens on a DX body? What am I missing?

Either you or me missed a "not". I'm not a native English speaker either, so it could just as well be me who goofed.