Which wide-angle zoom?

<p>**Let me try to keep this as clear as possible (because if nothing else,

all the searching I've done across the web from forums to message boards to

review sites have created nothing but more confusion)**</p>

<p><br>

I need a lens, which will give me the least amount of all things considered

lens cons (chromatic

abrasions, barrel distortions, flaring, ghosting, slow focusing, poor color

saturations, bad sharpening, etc., etc., and all those many things that cause

a lens to be rated worse than another).<br>

<br>

I do have a budget to consider, yet, I am willing to bend if there is the ONE

perfect (arguable I'm sure) lens that will do what I need it to do.<br>

<br>

The important stuff... a wide-angle zoom. Minus all those "bad" stuff I

mentioned earlier.<br>

<br>

The main purpose of this lens will be to accompany me as the primary piece on

many of my treks across the city and beyond; shoot much of the on-location

events I plan on shooting (socials, formals, weddings, concerts, etc.); and be

my regular every-day lens I can use without fear excessive wear and tear.<br>

<br>

Doesn't matter if it is DX or not, as I will base the body that will become my

permanent

on whichever lens I settle on.</p>

<p>Now you know what the concerns are, what do you think?</p>

A 17-55/2.8 DX lens is very high quality, and well suited for weddings and social events with a DSLR. For film, the equivalent range is a 28-70/2.8 AFS. A 17-35/2.8 lens can be used with both film and digital, but is best used in conjunction with the 28-70 for weddings and events.

 

No lens is perfect, but these lenses are very sharp and have negligible aberations, chromatic or otherwise. They are also expensive.

I have the same criteria as yours, while I begin to rebuild my Nikon system. To me the choice is 17-35 f2,8 AFS lens. It will gave a view equal of 25 to 50mm. The lens has less distorsion and flare than the 17-55, and will be usable in case Nikon give the full frame or maybe 1,2x crop factor sensor. Another plus point, the zoom is not extended (internal zoom), so less chance of dust to come in.

My vote is for the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8. It is my everyday lens.

 

Read about it here:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-35ED

...and here

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/17_35_review.html

You said that budget is a consideration, but that it is flexible. How much are you willing to

spend? You also said that it does not matter whether it is a a DX lens or a FF lens.

Respectfully, are you clear in what your needs are? I ask this because I shoot both film and

digital and there are times when I wish my 17-35mm was actually a 12-24mm. Of course,

the 12-24mm would do me no good for the landscape work I use my film camera for.

 

We're all gear geeks here and most of us have owned way more lenses than we actually

use at one point or another. It sounds to me like you're working the problem backwards

and my concern would be that you're setting yourself up for some level of disappointment

if the "magic lens" that each one of us has suggested for you has too much flare,

distortion, etc. than you care for. Not so much of an issue, except that we're talking about

$1,000 here, more or less...

 

Answer three simple questions, and your choice will be much easier:

1: What problem am I trying to solve with a wide angle zoom?

2. How much do I honestly want to spend.

3. Is most of my work going to be FF or digital?

 

Answer these and I think that your solution will be much easier. Good luck.

This will help a little bit (correct aberrations, vignetting, barrel automatically): http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/cameras_lenses

 

It's a great tool, at least for a hobbyist like me. Fast, simple, efficient. It doesn't replace good glass, of course.

My sugesstion is that you get hold of the following two lenses.

 

1) AF-S Nikkor 18-200 mm 3.5-5.6 G ED VR.

2) AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm f 4IF ED

*) Both are DX lenses.

 

I use the first one and plan to get the second. They are excellent lenses and should serve your purpose. You can also opt for the Tokina 12-24mm f 4 wide zoom instead of (#2) if cost is an issue.

 

But dont take my word as final, check out www.kenrockwell.com for expert, in depth analysis on both these lenses.

Hope this helps.

---- Suva ----

I use the Tamron 11-18mm and I am happy with the results. There is some barreling, but

since I normally crop with this lense, I find this not to be a big issue. I have shot weddings

with this lense, cityscapes, and landscapes. I chose it because of the intersection of price

and performance, and I have the very nice Nikon 18-70DX, and did not want to have that

much overlap with a 12-24. I also find the extra mm on the low side to be quite nice.

Many thanks to everyone who took a moment to share a perspective. Hearing the opinions of so many does significantly help the decision process for me. So far, it seems like the 18-70DX will be a my pick, for many reasons. Decent quality, good price, and most of all it wont be the 28-70 f2.8 ED type, where I'd be afraid to lug it around and put it to good use 'cuz it cost $2K. I've decided what's most important is overall use-ability, and the 18-70 seems to be the best choice for that purpose.