Wide angle lens

Hi everyone, I ordered my D300 a couple of days ago and I've been thinking

about getting myself a good quality wide angle lense to go with it for

landscapes. Can anyone recommend one? I do want to upgrade to the FX format

eventually so I have discounted the 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX.

If the price doesn't bother you, there is always the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S or the earlier 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. Both should be great on FX, but 17mm is probably not wide enough on the D300, though.

I'd say get what is right for your camera now, not what can be used for another camera in the future. Otherwise, you are likely to have to make comprimises now or in the future.

Buy the 12-24 now and when you upgrade to FX sell the 12-24.

Or, if you really do see the D300 as a transitional body and don't want to tie up quite so much cash in Nikon's 12-24, get the quite nice Sigma 10-20 HSM. Close to half the price. Treat it nicely until you go FX, and you'll be able to sell it for a fair portion of what it costs... and in the meantime, you'll fall in love with a rectilinear 10mm. It's a hell of a lens at under $500, and there will be LOTS of people with DX sensors to sell it to, for years to come.

Come to think of it, the suggestions to get the right lens for your current camera now and worry about the future later on are good.

I had the Tokina 12-24mm and as fare as the reviews go, is as close as it can get to the "real deal" Nikon.

Built quality of the Tokina ATX pro is just as the pro line of Nikon lenses (it may be even better).

I would also suggest the Tokina 12-24 F4. It's an outstanding lens and it much less than the Nikon. I have never used the Sigman 10-20 but it seems to be right there with the Tokina is terms of overall quality.

The 14-24 and 17-35 are probably what you should consider if you really want to use the same wide angle on DX and FX. But they are very expensive.

 

Don't discount the 12-24 DX. It is an excellent lens for landscapes. It's a cheaper and more compact than either of the other two zooms it's got impeccable performance stopped down for apertures typically used in landscape photography. People also report that it can be used between 18 mm and 24 mm focal lengths on 35mm film without vignetting, so maybe it works well on D3 too. And yes, you can always sell it when you're done with DX.

 

I use 17-55 DX on a D200 and while it's good, I think the 12-24 DX is better for landscapes with less flare and better corners at f/11. For use with the D3 I bought a 25mm Zeiss and maybe later a 18mm.

"I do want to upgrade to the FX format eventually....."

 

Richard, all of us probably will upgrade to FX *eventually* whenever that is. But I live for today, not something that may be 5 yrs down the road.

 

Since you are making a commitment to DX now, get a lens for the camera. Either the 12-24 or 10-20 will well suit your needs. When you change to FX, sell the camera and lenses if you like.

 

That said, I agree with Shun. I would go with the 14-24mm if you can live with a noticeable difference between 14mm and 12mm (much less 10mm) AND you can afford the huge price difference. That gives you the best of both worlds.

Sigma 12-24 will work with FX but it is a big bugger and it looks like Popeye.

Thanks for your advice guys. I will bear this in mind when I am in Chicago to collect the D300 in December as I want to pick up the lens there as well. Damn! the exhange rate is down to 2.05 now!!..:-)

I have to agree with Matt, Sigma 10-20mm HSM is an awesome lens

I've been using the Sigma 10-20mm almost daily for about a year now. I'm very happy with it. The extra 2mm wide does help a bit.

 

 

Kent in SD