leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I'd like to get a good wide-angle zoom for my nikon d200. The nikon 17-55 f/2.8 seems too pricey particularly when I read that there is distortion at the wide end. Is there such a zoom that is sharp at all apetures and has little distortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrenlewis Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Sigma 10-20. Can't beat it for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 The best cost the most money even if distortion is included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 I'd like something longer than 20mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 What's more important, here - the distortion, the speed, or the budget? You might seriously consider saving some money and goind with the 18-70 for when you happen to need that shorter length. But it's slower than the 17-55, of course. And a quarter of the price. And way more than a quarter of the sharpness. Perhaps a little more about your shooting style/subjects? A "good wide-angle zoom," alas, leaves lots of room for interpretation without knowing your priorities a little more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 I'd like a good quality "all-around" lens or walk about lens. I dont mind spending a bit more for better quality I'm not sure the nikon 17-55 is worth its price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 I should mention that I have a 24-85 f/2.8 lens which is quite good but again not wide open and not at the lower end of the zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 The 17-55 will, from all accounts, make you deliriously happy. NO zoom has "no distortion" at the wide end, and few probably have much less than the 17-55. An alternative would be the 17-35mm. Because it's a full-frame lens, the distortion at the wide end on a DX sensor is remarkably well controlled, but you'd be switching to your 24-85 a lot, and I'm guessing you don't want to do that. Either way, what you have now is just not wide enough. How will you use this lens? The 17-55 is FAR too heavy for extensive "carrying around", say hiking or something. For that you'd REALLY want to consider the 18-70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 I would use the lens for travel, events where my 50mm is a bit too long. I would use it when I want to carry only one lens. I wol.d probably not use it for hiking. However I didnt find the 17-55 "too" heavy when I tried it out in the camera store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltflanagan Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 12-24 f4 DX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 What do you consider wide? I am using a 18/70 plus I am amassing some primes. BTW, they all distort so accept it. PTLens will fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 OK, I have a Tokina 12-24, nikon 50mm f/1.4, nikon 24-85mm 2.4-4 and nikon 85mm f/1.4, and nikon 80-200 f/2.8 Ideally I'd be looking for 1 17(or 18)-80mm. I like the Sony 16-80mm zoom range for the Sony alpha. Nikon doesnt make anything close to that. Maybe I should switch over to Sony but reluctant since I've made the investment in all these lenses for nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Leonard, the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens is an outstanding lens. It is certainly the most distortion-free wide-to-short-tele pro zoom on the market for Nikon DX DSLRs. The barrel distortion at the wide end isn't that pronounced- you probably won't notice it in most images. The only times I see wide distortion with this lens are when I try to square up straight lines in an image- i.e. buildings. When wide angle distortion is visable, it is largely correctable in Photoshop or other imaging programs. I don't often notice the wide-end distortion- I can't remember the last time I did lens distortion correction with a 17-55mm image in Pshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte1 Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 Thank You Eric (and others). These discussions help me in making decisions. I wish I could use the sony 16-80mm on the d200. That zoom range wold probably do for 80-90% of my shooting. I will certainly consider the 17-55. I just dont like the price :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
younes Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Have you looked at the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 or the sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Tokina also makes a slightly more expensive 16-50 2.6. I think they are all pretty good lenses and not quite as expensive as the Nikkor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_hamilton Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 My vote is for the 10-20... you have all the other bases covered. Put it on your camera, walk around the store and take some pictures... Fantastic!!! IMHO less distortion then nikon 12-24 and tamron 11-17 out of camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 There's also a Sigma 17 - 70mm f/2.8 - 4.5 that hasn't been mentioned yet. Don't have one, but to the extent it offers some distortion, I guess that must be weighed against the wallet distortion caused by the pro-level Nikkor zoom. If this has to be a fast lens, then Tamron and Sigma also offer f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses, the Tamron at 17 - 50mm and the Sigma at 18 - 50mm. From what I read, both are good lenses -- again, however, not in the same league as the 17 - 55 f/2.8 Nikkor, as to size, weight, build, optical quality ... or price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Leonard, I'd note one other thing- any wide-to-short-tele zoom made for a DX DSLR will show some barrel distortion on the wide end. These lenses start at 17mm or 18mm and you just aren't going to get a zoom that starts that wide that is perfectly rectilinear. I'd note that when I was shooting with a 28-70mm f/2.8 AFS lens on an F5, distortion at the wide end of the zoom was less pronounced- after all, the wide end of the zoom was only 28mm. While the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom is a worthy DX replacement for the 28-70mm f/2.8 AFS lens, in my experience, the 17-55mm inherently exhibits a little more barrel distortion at 17mm than the 28-70mm exhibited at 28mm. One big plus with the 17-55mm- the wide-angle distortion is mostly-correctable barrel distortion. It could be worse- for instance, with my old 20mm f/2.8 AFD lens on a FF SLR, shooting architecture, I'd get a little moustache distortion along the edges of the frame, which was not correctable in Pshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I always tho that the 17-55mm was overpriced until I bought one...now is the ONLY zoom I kept... AWESOME lens, built quality, AF speed and picture quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 The 18-55 will give you virtually the same image quality as the 17-55 at a fraction of the price. If you need a fast lens, you will probably need to go with a third party lens. Distortion is easily corrected through software with programs like DXO and Bibble (there are many others). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Some of the posts make me wonder whether a clear distinction is always being made between the 'distortion' of things like pincushion and barrel distortion and the perspective changes that are inevitable with a wide lens. The latter is often called 'distortion' but is not a result of a flaw in the lens. In any case, I'll second the recommendation of a Sigma 10-20mm. It's got little barrel distortion compared to many lenses at this focal length, and it is nicely rectilinear (not a fisheye). The extra 7mm makes a big difference at this end. The Sigma fits nicely in a 'tool kit' with lenses starting close to 'Normal' range and up to telephoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_ricks Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 18-70. It is sharp, takes knocks well, and seems to be the perfect zoom range for you. I have published hundreds of picures taken with one. If a few more bucks works there is no better "walking around" lens than the 18-200 AFS-vr. Don't worry so much about distortion. PS will fix it for you if you even notice it. And most of the time you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohanmike Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I have the Nikon AF 24-85mm f2.8-4 D Macro lens on a D70s and find it to be an excellent walk around lens, though a little big for some people. I have been considering the Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 for the wide angle and speed, but hate to give up the 1:2 macro of the Nikon. I will shoot close ups often enough, which makes me stick to the Nikon. Check out these shots: http://www.kohanmike.com/Macro_Closeups.htm http://www.kohanmike.com/Concerts.htm http://www.kohanmike.com/Portraits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 12-24 Nikon is a pretty good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Brennan Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 18-70 DX and D200 = great budget priced combo 17-55 DX and D200 = brilliant more expensive combo 12-24 DX and D200 = awesome combo that also costs $$ I have shot a lot with all 3 above and have found that I got what I'd paid for. If you are travelleing O.S. go for the cheaper 18-70 DX maybe the best value lens for the $$ I have used (and I took it O.S. on travels) If you fork out for the 17-55 DX I doubt if you will have any residual regrets on either price or image re-production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now