Wide angle zooms

Hi,

I'm am looking to buy a wide angle zoom and would like some

advice. The lenses I am thinking of are- The 17-35 AF-S, The 18-

35 ED or the Sigma 15-30 EX. Ultimatly the 17-35 AF-S but don't

have the cash yet. Other then the speed what major Quality

differences are there between the two Nikons and will I really

notice the 1mm (17 or 18). Next is this Sigma??? I am not eager

to buy non-Nikon glass, is this a real consern? I really like the

idea of the extra width with this lens!!! Also the price!!! Do I save

for the big ticket lens or will either of the other ones give me

good quality photos? Any help would be great!

Hi Ryan,

I have the Nikon 18-35, and I can tell you this is an awesome lens. Most reviews--and I read a lot of them before buying this lens--state that it's a little soft wide open, but I usually have the lens stopped all the way down and the camera on a tripod, so I haven't noticed. Stopped down, some claim the quality rivals the 17-35; I can't comment on that having never compared the two myself, but I have no regrets about the 18-35.

 

I can't believe the difference between 17mm and 18mm is going to be something you notice, or can't compensate for by backing up two or three inches. What you'll gain with the 17-35 will probably be a little better quality and a lot more weight. Don't know what to say about the Sigma.

 

Good Luck,

Martin

Ryan, could you please specify (1) what type of photography you are into and (2) which camera body(ies) you are planning to use the lens on?

 

Without knowing what type of photography you are into, it is very difficult to make good suggestions. 1 mm makes a non-trivial difference in the extreme wide range. If you are using film bodies, 18mm is wide enough in most situations. However, on a D1/D100 body, a 17mm is more like 25mm on 35mm film bodies, and 18mm is that all that wide any more. I personally don't like to use non Nikon lenses on Nikon bodies, but if you shoot digital and need a super wide lens, the Sigma may make sense.

 

If cost is a concern, I would say in most cases you are better off with the 18-35 over the 17-35 and spend the different on other lenses, more film, tripod, etc. But only you can make that decision.

I have the 18-35mm ED. It does a real nice job. I previously owned the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4, although I don't know if that's made anymore. I "upgraded" to the Nikon 18-35mm about a year ago. I was happy with the quality of the Sigma. Although, I believe I have a little less distortion with the Nikon.

Thanks for the info all. I am using a f4 camera body . I have a 24-

85 Nikor lens now and find I'm always wanting more width (lots

more). Any info on the Sigma compared to the Nikons would be

great. Thanks,

Rye

Hi Ryan- I have used both the Nikon 17-35 and the 15-30 Sigma

lenses. I think the Nikon is clearly a superior lens. Wide open,

the Sigma lens is a bit soft and lacks good contrast- there's just

no way around it. Stop down to f4, though, and it's fine. The

Nikon gave me much more acceptable images wide open.

 

As for the difference between 17 and 18mm (never mind 15mm)

remember how wide angles work. A short change in focal length

equals a big difference in coverage, especially when you get this

wide. One or two mm (especially three) equates to several

degrees of coverage in terms of angle of view. And don't forget

how much distance to subject appears through these lenses. If

you back up the foot or two neccesary to include the same

coverage from 15 to 17 or 17 to 18, it can really change the

image in regard to how far you are from your subjects.

 

That said, I will suggest that 18mm is plenty wide enough if you

are shooting film. With digital, get the Sigma, stop down, and

live with it. What you lke to shoot will make a difference, too. I

find that I very rarely want to go wider than about 19-21mm

photographing people, because the angle of view and distortion

gets to look very un-natural. With architctural subjects, using a

tripod and a level, on the other hand, you might want to go as

wide as you can get.