best wide-angle zoom for D200?

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?

Sigma 10-20. Can't beat it for the money.

The best cost the most money even if distortion is included.

I'd like something longer than 20mm.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

12-24 f4 DX

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.

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.

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.

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 :(

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

12-24 Nikon is a pretty good deal.

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.