Best wide angle for the money?

<p>I'm looking for sharpest wide angle for around $600 -700. I've kind of narrowed it down to Nikon's 20-35mm f/2.8D (used), Tokina's 17-35mm f/4 and Tokina's 16-28mm f/2.8. It would be for my own personal projects, landscapes mainly. Whether it's f2.8 or f/4 really doesn't matter. Does anyone have any experience with these lenses? Which is sharpest? Thanks.</p>

<p>If you can pick a focal length and stick to that, a prime Sigma "art" lens is going to be way sharper than any of these zooms. Why not the Sigma 24/1.4 and then crop a bit if you want a perspective closer to 28 or 35mm?</p>

<p>The Tamron 15-30mm is actually quite good. My choice? I have a Nikon 20mm f1.8G. I stayed with it even though the new Sigma 20mm f1.4 is supposed to be a small bit better.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Since I've sold my 17-35/2.8, my only Nikon F mount lens wider than 24mm is the Nikon 20/1.8G, which is good enough for me. I also have a Sigma 24/1.4 ART which is a more versatile FL for me.</p>

<p>If I really wanted wider, I'd probably look into the recently released Irix 15/2.4 'Blackstone' or 'Firefly.' It's available in Europe now and will soon be available in the US. It's been getting some positive reviews and initial photos from European buyers look nice. I believe both versions are within your price range.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I received excellent answers in <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00doSa">this recent photo.net thread</a> when I asked for advice in selecting a 20mm lens. The I described in that thread are a little different from yours, but I still think it may be useful for you.</p>

<p>I've been using a Nikon 20 AFD for years, and continue to like its reliability. I also sometimes use a manual focus Tamron SP 17 from their SP Adaptall-2 line. A little more distortion than the Nikon 20, but a good overall lens when that focal length is needed.</p>

<p>Another Pandora's box has been opened here! I would go for either the Nikon 28mm 2.8 D or 35mm 2 D. Both these lenses are able to produce quite superb results. Many are available used, see Ebay. You will have spare change left from your $600-$670, and making do with a good prime for your photography will do wonders for your self discipline and sense of composition.</p>

<p>Unless you are looking for panoramas and enjoy doing a lot of post processing, I have found the Nikon 24mm isn't a good lens for landscape work, it generally includes too much and you end up with images suffering from subject overload. Distortion is manageable even with the 28 and almost nonexistent with the 35mm, unlike the 24mm and certainly the 20mm, which both distort quite grandly.</p>

<p>I generally keep a 28mm 2.8D on my Nikon D700 and find I use it for most of my general shooting. My 24mm handles panoramas well with lots of cropping later in PP, and on occasion I use a 20mm in tight situations like Buddhist temples or crowded and narrow Asian markets when I want lots of detail in my images.</p>

<p>My partner shoots almost entirely landscapes with an old Nikkor 50mm 2 from one of my old film Nikons or an 85mm 1.8 D.</p>

<p>I have a small collection of Nikon zooms but they are almost never used. When I do reach for a zoom, often as not it's an old (1990s) 28-85 D with very battered finish but the sharpest glass I've ever seen in any zoom.</p>

<p>Landscapes are (usually) very personal work. Less is - well, it's less. And better.</p>

<p>The thought of spending up to $700 for any one lens is mind-boggling to me. I always buy used and carefully. My 20mm 2.8 D cost $310 and the last lens I purchased was a 180mm 2.8 ED for $360. The bargains in good lenses are out there if you put in the time and effort to find them.</p>

<p>JDW at home. </p>

<p>Post from Philip Greenspun noted. What a surprise (and a pleasure) to see Philip posting here again!</p>

<p>What body will you use it on? FX, DX? resolution? </p>

Eric, the 20-35 Nikor that many of us admired over the years is a much older lens than I would recommend. It's also not an "S" lens so

can't be used on auto focus with some Nikon bodies. If your going to spend $700 go the extra distance and buy a current quality fixed

focal length lens like the Nikon 1.8 or the Sigma 1.4 that you will never regret owning or have doubts about image quality. To me $700 dollars is too much to spend on an older zoom lens that would represent a compromise. The only third party lenses I own have unique applications behind the dome port of an underwater camera housing but the Sigma Art lenses seem to represent something much different and are pushing quality forward, at a price most of us can afford, fortunately for all of us. Good hunting.

<p>Sharpness in what kind of use? If you will nearly always stop down to f/8-f/16 to maximize depth of field, I wouldn't spend a lot more for a faster lens. If you plan to use it often at wide-ish apertures, I wouldn't look at zooms but at fast(er) primes.<br>

A lens I would most certainly include on your budget is the Nikon AF-S 18-25mm f/3.5-4.5G; you can get it new with warranty within your budget and reviews show solid performance. Personally, for that money, I'd go the 20mm f/1.8G, but the lack of zoom might not be for all.</p>

<p>There are really a lot of potential variables here, so it's hard to narrow things down.<br /> Single focal length vs zoom?<br /> how much wide angle? "ultra" or "normal"?<br /> just to start with.<br /> "Sharpest" is also nearly meaningless simply stated as an abstract quality. "Primes" will almost always be "sharper" than zooms, but you list only zooms in your alternatives.<br /> You need to define your needs more precisely. "Landscapes" is not very limiting here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"We want information"<br /> ......No. 2, <em>The Prisoner</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>And it is a pleasure to welcome one of the founding fathers back to P.net!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you are looking for panoramas and enjoy doing a lot of post processing, I have found the Nikon 24mm isn't a good lens for landscape work,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've gone to the Nikon 24mm PC-E for my wide landscape lens. Stitching three shots together is extremely easy (CC does all the work!) and the results are perfection. My three lens carry is now Nikon 24mm PC-E, Sigma 50mm f1.4A, Nikon 105mm Micro VR.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

Eric, sorry if I strayed off topic. Take a look at Bjorn Rorslett's coments on the 20-35 mm on his current web site. Under

"recent posts" and also an older post on his legacy site. I own Nikor 17-35 and the current 16-35 vr (it works underwater

behind a dome) and the 20mm f 2.8. They are all fine lenses, two that are older, but would not be my first choice for

landscape. At your price point and what your looking for the Nikor 1.8 or Sigma 1.4 Art lenses would closest meet your

stated criteria and have lasting value. It's probably important to remember that while many obsessed about gear, Galen Rowell

used cheap plastic zoom lenses that packed light to shoot award winning land scape photographs that no one else ever

imagined. Stay frosty.

<p>I have posted several times before that my current favorite in this focal length range is the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S:<br>

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-18-35mm-f%252f3.5-4.5g-ed.html</p>

<p>If you buy new, it is slightly above the OP's price range, but you can find $50 or $100 rebates to bring it down from $750 to $650 or so, new.</p>

<p>This lens is sharp from corner to corner on its wide side. The trade off is a slower maximum aperture and a plastic barrel. To me, the plastic barrel is actually an advantage, making it lighter and easier to hike with. For landscape where you typically shoot at f8 or f11, this lens is great. It wouldn't be my first choice for indoor, party type photography.</p>

<p>In December 2014, I took this lens to a sub-Antarctic cruise that departed from the southern tip of New Zealand. My wife and I had a small cabin with a bunk bed. I unwisely left this lens (not attached to any camera) on the top bunk with pillows around it. The sub-antarctic ocean is very rough. After dinner, we returned to the cabin and I found the lens on the floor, which had a thin carpet. There isn't any scratch on the lens. I tested it and it is still working fine now almost two years later.</p>

<p>The 18-35 AF-S takes 77mm filters should you want to use a polarizer for landscape, but for something that wide, it is easy to over-polarize.</p>

<p>I went through several WA Zooms B4 settling. My only choice for better would be the Nikon 17-35/2.8.</p>

<p>I ended up with and use often the Tokina 17-35/F4. KR had a fairly good splatter page on WA Full Frame zooms. Mine seems to perform better than his consensus. The only drawback is 82mm filters.... (Which solved itself,) <strong>and don't look at the focusing scale.</strong></p>

<p>Later, for a song, I picked up an old Sigma 24-70/2.8, (which also uses 82mm's.) I have a bag of budget wides & normal zooms which are trumped....("Can I say that?") with my Nikkor 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>'Nuff said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>trumped....("Can I say that?")<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No swearing allowed.</p>

<p>My favorite wide angle is the 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor which is excellent for events, interiors as well as landscape. It is very resistant to flare and ghosting; if you include the sun in the composition, or just outside of it, it is a very good choice. The sharpness is at a very high level. The only drawback I find with it is its not so easy to use manual focus ring (too small turn, some play) which makes it tricky to focus for astro-landscape shots. </p>

<p>What a treat :-) A post from photo.net founder and author of Travels with Samantha, Philip Greenspun. </p>

<p>I have both the Nikon 20-35 and 17-35/2.8 zooms. The 17-35 I have looks great on the D810, and is a little better than the 20-35 when both are at 2.8, but I would not hesitate to use the 20-35 at 2.8 if needed. Above f/4, I can't tell much difference. While I generally use the 17-35 more often than the 20-35, I do wish the 17-35 was as small as the 20-35 and weighed less. I paid less than your budget for my used 17-35 that is in good condition.</p>

<p>I have not used the other lenses mentioned in this thread, but I did replace an older but "highly rated" Tokina 20-25/3.5-4.5 with the 20-35/2.8 Nikon. The Nikon was MUCH better. The Tokina I had was a little better than the older version 18-35 Nikon that I tried. I am sure that the new Nikon 18-35AFS is good and probably should be in your analysis, but have not used it. The 16-35/4VR looks to be good, but is even longer/larger than the lenses I have so it does not interest me much. </p>

<p>I generally shoot people, not landscapes, so I tend to use the 24-35 end of the zoom a lot. For me, that rules out lenses that stop at 24mm on the long end. An X-28mm would probably work OK for me.</p>

<p>As for the absolute sharpest lens, any of the 1.8G or Sigma Art prime lenses would beat the zoom choices somewhat, but the 17/20-35/2.8 Nikon zooms are as good or better than the older primes (20,24&28/2.8 & 35/2) in my evaluations.</p>

<p>How about a 35 f2.8 MF Nikon and a 20 f4 MF. Light weight, sharp, cheap and low distortion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Best wide angle for the money?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I rarely use small format cameras for landscapes. I prefer 6x9cmm medium format and 4x5 inch large format.</p>

<p>I rarely use zooms for landscapes. I prefer primes.</p>

<p>Here are some of the wide-angle lenses I have used on DX bodies for landscapes:<br>

14mm f/2.8 Nikon<br>

18mm f/3.5 Nikon<br>

18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 Nikon DX lens (best wide angle for the money)<br>

14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon (my personal favorite zoom for landscapes)</p>

<p>Here are some of the wide-angle lenses I have used on FX bodies for landscapes:<br>

14mm f/2.8 Nikon<br>

18mm f/3.5 Nikon<br>

24mm f/2 Nikon<br>

28mm f/2.8 Nikon (my personal favorite prime for landscapes)<br>

28mm f/4 Nikon perspective control<br>

35mm f/2 or f/1.4 Nikon<br>

14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon<br>

28-70mm f/2.8 Nikon<br>

28-200mm f/3.8 to f/5.6 Tamron (best wide angle for the money)</p>

<p>I own and use the 20-35mm f/2.8D, however, I have never used this lens for landscapes. The primary reason I have never used this zoom for landscapes is that I prefer the 14-24mm and the 28-70mm.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>