Wide Angle lens recommendations

LareLare Posts: 46Member
edited February 2013 in Nikon Lenses
So I've been wanting a really good wide lens for landscapes and this morning I see the possibility that Nikon may want to help me out in the form of a rebate. Also, I think I may get a tax refund. Obviously a sign..

Here's my criteria:
I use a DX body (D7000) so the crop sensor has to be taken into account.
I already own the 18-200 Nikkor lens.
I want to shoot landscapes, so a fisheye isn't in my best interest.
I'm looking for a sharp lens.
I don't mind if there's some overlap into the range of my 18-200, what I'd like, though is something a little wider without getting into distortion.
I may someday go to full frame, so I'm rather hoping that this lens will start the collection of FF glass.
I've read a few reviews by Thom and even KR. I'm posting this to expand that review base. The more people that like a lens, and use it in similar situations to mine, the more likely I will be to concentrate my interest in that area.

As always, thanks in advance.
Post edited by Msmoto on

«1

Comments

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Hi, I changed the thread title so as to make it cover all the possibilities. For a lens wider than 18mm, and to have it cover full frame, the AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED may be about it. Or the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED. Either of these will just about kill a $2,000 bill. And the angle on your D7000 will be about 75° horizontally. Your 18mm is already 63°.

    The AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR will provide 69° and is a lens I like.

    Your problem in wanting to purchase a wide angle lens, yet have it for full frame is in the 1.5 crop factor of the DX format. There are no wide angle lenses which will be very wide on DX and cover full frame.

    There will no doubt be several recommendations for non-Nikon lens on this thread and you can give all these consideration.
    Msmoto, mod
  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    If you think you'll continue to shoot DX for a while, get a 12-24 (I've used this and liked it) or a Tokina 11-16 (never tried it but many people here who have love it). If you think you may go full frame fairly soon, get a 16-35 or a 17-35 (there are a lot of decently priced used copies of this one floating around; that's how I got mine). Nikon has recently announced a new 18-35, but I don't know if it's available yet.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    I have the 11-16mm Tokina, - great lens, but I rarely use it for landscapes on my D7000 as the FoV is too wide. I did a check on this a while back and I found the majority of my landscapes are between 16-24 so a good lens for you to consider would be the 16-85 VR as it a fraction of the price of most of the others mentioned here.
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    I think the OP stating:

    "I may someday go to full frame, so I'm rather hoping that this lens will start the collection of FF glass." makes the selection quite limited.

    Lare, it is important to note...the switch to full frame can be very expensive. As noted by many, the DX lenses are far less expensive and unless you have a budget of several thousand dollars (USD) going FX may not be the direction to travel.
    Msmoto, mod
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,336Member
    I bought a used 12-24 for my DX kit, from Adorama IIRC. Shaved nearly half off the price of new glass and at least gives me something to work with. FX will have to wait, don't know if I'm ready for that investment.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • adamzadamz Posts: 842Moderator
    Though I'm not a huge fan of Sigma, my choice for You at this moment is to get the sigma 10-20, it's a really nice lens on DX though totally useless on FX. another option is to get 16-35, but I wouldn't go for this solution as this will give You "only" 2mm, IQ quality option is the outstanding 14-24/2.8 though I doubt it's a good solution for You both money and size wise.
  • LareLare Posts: 46Member
    Look at that! Barely two hours and already much useful information. I love this place.

    Realistically, I don't see FF in the near future, meaning at least a few years. I would like to leave the option open and lean toward an FX lens, all else being equal. (Except price, of course.)

    @spraynpray: TOO wide? I never considered that that could happen.
    @msmoto: I realize the switch is expensive. That's why I'm hoping that I can find an ideal lens or two to start with. It's a little of the "Better to have FX capability and not need it than to have a FF camera and nothing but DX lenses." That said, though, a long, hard look at real-life finances will ultimately be the deciding factor.

    Whatever I finally go with, image quality will be the overriding determinant. At this point I see no benefit in gaining a couple mm on the wide end but having any quality less than I can obtain now.

    And I have a few months. (Trip to Yosemite later this summer. Totally jazzed about it.)

    Thanks again, everyone.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    OK, No FX for awhile...I had the 12-24mmf/4 and it is going for about $500-550 on Amazon used. This would be my suggestion as it will give you 82° horizontal on DX.
    Msmoto, mod
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    I have the 10-24 and love it. If/When you move to FX it will still work with some vignetting at the far wide end.
  • jjdarlingjjdarling Posts: 59Member
    I second the 10-24. I bought one about 2 months ago, mostly to have that range "covered" and I've been amazed at how much I've used it. I've found that with the 10-24 + 35mm prime, I only ever use my 18-200 when I really want some zoom.

    I've also heard the 10-24 works decently well in FX above 14mm. Definitely worth investigating. I've found in DX I never go below 12mm because of the distortion, and with the expanded field of view with FX, I don't think you're missing much. I got the lens on ebay for $567.89 (I bid weird).
    www.jjdarling.com
  • shadowlandsshadowlands Posts: 8Member
    I once owned the older Tamron 11-18 and it was most excellent.
    If on a budget, you may want to consider.
    "shadowlands"
    Nikon D800 FX & Nikon Coolpix A DX
    Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8D & Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8D
    Nikon AF 20-35 f2.8D & Nikon AF 50mm f1.4D
    Nikon SB-800 & Nikon SB-300

    www.flickr.com/photos/dbdigital/
    www.flickr.com/photos/darrenwb/
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    I have the 16 -35 f4vr on a D800 and it is superb

    but on a D7000 this would not be much wider than the 18 -200

    so buy an dx ultra wide and sell it if you move up to FX

    I had the sigma 10 - 20 on a D90 and loved it

    but most people seem to think the Tokina 11-16 is a better bet
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I have to swear by Tokina for wide angles. DX the 12-24 f/4 has been my go-to lens for years. Very sharp, very well built. For FX I just picked up a Tokina 16-28mm and the thing is amazing. The distortion control knocks my socks off and it is sharp across the frame. I rented the Nikon 14-24 and honestly I think the Tokina is better in most areas - especially when you consider it is almost 2.5x cheaper!
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • mk2popmk2pop Posts: 80Member
    edited February 2013
    I have a 10-24 Nikon and absolutely love it, couldn't recommend it more
    the extra 2mm over the 12-24 is actually quite a difference when compared
    Post edited by mk2pop on
    D300 | D90 | D40 | F65 x2 | F75 | 10-24mm | 18-200mm | 35mm f1.8 | 50mm 1.4d | 40mm Micro | 70-300mm Tamron | 100-300mm f4 Sigma |1.4x Sigma tc | Sb400 | Sb900 x2

    Awaiting a DX D400
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I also had the 12-24 f4 and for landscape shot I didn't find myself ever really needing the 12 end all that much. I have now sold it and just use my 17-55 which is wide enough. I think the advantage of something wider was the perspective it gave at sometime.

    When I purchased my 12-24 in my head I was thinking huge wide landscapes of mountains and then I got out using it and was shooting at 16-24 for those.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member

    When I purchased my 12-24 in my head I was thinking huge wide landscapes of mountains and then I got out using it and was shooting at 16-24 for those.
    Anything like that I like to shoot in the 60-100 range. I think most people starting out see a poster of mountains and think a wide angle was use, when actually it was a telephoto. The widest I usually ever go is 18-20mm equiv, but most "wide" shots are at 24mm-30mm equiv.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited February 2013
    Hello Lare,

    For your D7000, I'm going to have to agree with TaoTeJared on Tokina (yet I disagree with his remarks on the 14-24 2.8) for wide angle, if price is a factor and the move to FF is far in the future. With that said, be warned, once you start shooting landscapes, with the right technique (i.e composition, light, exposure, etc..etc.) and supporting gear, the move to FF will come far sooner than you think.

    My recommendation, given your information to us is the: Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. A friend of mine has this and I have used it as well and it is fantastic. I really like the fact that it is a 2.8 lens. Fix apertures is the way to go in my book.

    Other things that you may want to consider getting as well: a neutral density filter, circular polarizer, and the most important of all a good tripod.

    Happy shopping....cheers :)
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • DavidDavid Posts: 18Member
    Finding a ultra wide for both DX and FX is going to prove difficult. I have been accumulating FX lenses to make my transition all that much easier - aside from the Ultra-wide end of the spectrum. They really do not equate from DX to FX in that range. I have a Sigma 10-20 variable aperture lens, which does the job just fine as I am always on a tripod and stopping the lens down a bit for my exposures to get more depth of field.

    I have also heard great things about the Tokina.

    But when I make the move to FX - which will be soon enough - I will have to purchase a wide lens for it and sell off my Sigma.
  • rschnaiblerschnaible Posts: 308Member
    For landscapes on the D7000 I have two Nikkor lens that I enjoy.

    The Nikkor 10-24mm
    The Nikkor 24-70mm

    These have been my favorite since adding them.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    @Lare:

    I find that the 11-16 is great for working in a restricted space (like interiors) or where you want to exaggerate perspective (see my B&W of the old schoolhouse on the PAD) but the number of times I use it for landscapes is negligible. The perspective is far too exaggerated. I think you should hire an ultra wide and try using it for what you think you will be using it for (landscapes). I reckon you will be surprised in how little use it will be.
    Always learning.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    @Lare:

    I find that the 11-16 is great for working in a restricted space (like interiors) or where you want to exaggerate perspective (see my B&W of the old schoolhouse on the PAD) but the number of times I use it for landscapes is negligible. The perspective is far too exaggerated. I think you should hire an ultra wide and try using it for what you think you will be using it for (landscapes). I reckon you will be surprised in how little use it will be.
    +1 kind of what I was getting at. If you are doing interior shots or are really close to something large then the UWA is nice to have. I sold mine and haven't really missed it at all. 17 is usually more then enough and half the time in landscape shots I can't even use that because I am trying to cut something out of the pictures. If you have a purpose in mind though maybe share that.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • LareLare Posts: 46Member
    edited February 2013
    Much to think about. (Well really, it isn't all that much, seems to be narrowing down to a few that I was considering "Great Possibilities.")

    I was kind of hoping that the current Nikon rebates would have included the 12-24, but since they didn't, I won't feel as pressured to maybe buy one of them. At the moment, anyway. The Tokina looks really promising.
    Post edited by Lare on

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    It is a great lens Lare, you will not regret it but it asks to be teamed with the 16-85 - I have the 18-105 so have a small gap. I don't find that a problem, but if I had the 16-85 I would only have bought the 11-16 for interior work as the 16 end of the 16-85 is usually all I need for landscapes.
    Always learning.
  • Swame_spSwame_sp Posts: 58Member
    I have d7000 and own tokina 12-24.... It just works fine (just fine)... Definitely there is enough range than 11-16... With that being said, I also get a feeling that my lens copy has some issues. It overexposes sometimes and doesn't have corner to corner sharpness. It could be just that the lens is a bad copy.

    Lesson learnt: Never buy other than nikon lenses, worth to put in extra. If you are like me, on limited budget and willing to be patient, look at used Nikkor lenses on craigslist or ebay.
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    edited February 2013
    I have a Nikon 10-24 myself and absolutely love it! I also used to own a Tokina 11-16 but ended up selling it in favor of keeping the Nikon.

    My last photo in PAD was taken with the 10-24 btw.
    Post edited by ChromiumPrime on
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
Sign In or Register to comment.