Need a fast wide angle prime other than the new 35 1.8

<p>Not a fan of zoom lenses so I sold all of them a couple of weeks ago and bought some primes. My collection now consists of Nikon 105 2.0 DC, 85 1.8D and 50 1.8D. What I need now is a wide angle prime for group shots. I know the 35 1.8 G just came out and it would have been great because it's inexpensive but I figure there is not much difference between the 50 1.8D I have. Can any of you recommend something wider than the 35mm third party brands included below my $400.00 budget? I have a D90. Thanks fellas! </p>

<p>Sigma 30 f/1.4 seems to get good reviews - not tried it myself</p>

<p>Well, on a DX body, there is indeed a pretty big difference between 30mm and 50mm. Personally, I'm happy as can be with Sigma's 30/1.4 HSM, and haven't even given Nikon's new 35/1.8 a thought. That extra 5mm and the f/1.4 makes me happy.<br /><br />While you still had your zooms (I presume there was an 18-xxx of some sort in the mix), did you get a sense of just how wide you're talking about? And, how fast a lens are you looking for? For most group shots, you're not going to want razor-thin DoF anyway, so you'll be stopping down to f/5.6 or greater. This may indeed be the time to get over the zoom allergy, and consider one of the handful of very nice DX wides out there.<br /><br />Tokina's 11-16, Sigma's 10-20 HSM (and they've just announced a new constant aperture f/3.5 version of it), etc. I use the Sigma frequently, and find that 20mm is incredibly useful for tight-quarters social shooting... while the 10mm end is incredibly useful for creative endeavors. But only you can say how wide "wide" is for what you have in mind. 30mm is a very versatile FL. Getting this done for under $400 might be tricky without making some significant compromises, though.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Sigma 30mm f1.4. A very nice lens.<br>

Dick</p>

<p>I enjoyed using the Nikkor AF-D 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8 and the AIS 28mm f2 when I had DX. I have now pretty much gone with AIS lenses for my D700 from 20mm to 105mm.</p>

<p>I do understand my budget is somewhat limited. Nikon's 28mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8 and 20mm 2.8 comes to mind. Know anything about these lenses? I guess I just need to do some research and find out which one has the least issues (vigenetting, ca, distortions, etc) and decide from there. Maybe I need to include Sigma's 30mm 1.4 in the list since everybody has mentioned it. Matt, I recall how high you praised the Sigma in your previous post and you have good photos to back it up. Thanks!</p>

<p>I use Bjorn site when looking for glass:<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a></p>

 

<p>Neither the Sigma 30mm/f1.4 nor the Nikon 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX is wide angle. Those lenses are intended for DX DSLRs, and even a 24mm lens is merely a slight wide angle on DX.</p>

<p>Don't bother with the 24mm on a D90. Save yourself some money and go with the new 35mm. <strike>The 24mm is a full frame lens and will look like 36mm on a DX body like the d90.</strike> <br>

The other thing to remember is that as you get to the wider end of the scale, small differences in focal length make big differences in your composition. The differince between 100mm and 105mm is negligible, but the difference between 11mm and 16mm is HUGE. I only say this because Zooms on the ultra-wide end are much more practicle than the bulky tele-zooms. I personally like the Tokina 11-16 which is slightly out of your price range, but definitely worth saving for.</p>

<p>Maybe a Nikon 20mm f2.8?</p>

<p>Will look like a 30mm on a DX camera, but is close to a 28mm wide angle on film.</p>

<p>I think you can get it used in the USA for pretty cheap. Also, as its a wide(ish) lens, you could maybe get away with manual focus and save yourself a dollar or two?</p>

<p>PLUS: as its a FX compatable lens, should you move to full frame you will have a lens that you can use on both FX and DX.</p>

<p>"Maybe a Nikon 20mm f2.8?<br>

Will look like a 30mm on a DX camera, but is close to a 28mm wide angle on film"</p>

<p>Rob I'm confused. Yes the 20 2.8 gives a 30mm view on DX digital but how does a 20mm lens give a 28mm view on film??</p>

<p>Tyler, how did you do the line through the words thing?</p>

<p>Richard, you can easily discover yourself how Tyler did it by:</p>

<p>1. Select View menu then Source, from your browser.<br>

2. From the source view window use menu Edit, then Find, and search for the test "The 24mm is a"<br>

and yiu will discover that the HTML tag STRIKE was used.</p>

<p>The weird part is that I didn't do that. Not sure what happened there.</p>

<p>Hi Michael,<br>

I should have been more clear. A 28mm is a standard definition of wide angle (in my experience anyway).<br>

So a 20mm on a DX will be a 30mm on film. So if Richard has a 28mm lens at home on an older film camera he will be able to asses its suitability for his needs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 35mm 1.8 would have been great news if it were not a G lens.</p>

<p>Bing: why would it have been better if not a G lens? It's only useful on DX-format bodies, and everyone of those ever made is able to work just fine with G lenses. It's not <em>that</em> horrible to use your thumb on the command wheel instead of reaching for the aperture ring on the lens. <br /><br />Now, if it were a 35/1.8 suitable for an FX body, that would be different. But it would cost a whole lot more than $200, too.</p>

<p>If you want a fast wide angle prime, you need to go FX; there are no really good Nikon fast primes which give a wide angle of view on DX.</p>

<p>For FX there are several good fast wide angle primes, such as the 35/1.4 Ai-S Nikkor, the 28mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor, and the 28/2 and 35/2 Zeiss that you can take advantage of if you can focus manually. For autofocus, there is the 35/2D AF Nikkor and the discontinued and extremely expensive 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor.</p>

<p>I had the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor that I used on my D300 but sold it and got a 24mm f2.8. Not that much difference in coverage and the 24mm is much lighter and smaller. If I need to go really wide I fall back to my 12-24 zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There have been a lot of lenses suggested which on a DX sized sensor are not wide angle at all.</p>

<p>From the semi-standard idea of a 28mm on a film or FX (36mm x 24mm) being a moderate wide-angle lens. To get the same angle of coverage on a DX you need less than a 20mm lens.</p>

<p>Thats the very annoying thing about DX cameras. If you like wide angle work, you need to wither go for a ultra-wide (and ultra expensive) FX lens or a ultra-short-life DX lens.</p>

 

<p><em>ultra-short-life DX lens</em><br /><br />DX (as a format) isn't going away any time soon, and there are some really well-built DX ultra-wides that <em>plenty</em> of people will buy if you keep them from being too scratched up on your way to an FX body down the road.<br /><br />Take for example the Sigma 10-20 HSM in the Nilkon mount. There isn't a single used one for sale on eBay or KEH. That's not because they all broke, it's because there's a steady demand for them, and will be for years to come.</p>

<p>There are some nice AFD 20/2.8's for sale on Ebay. I took a leap of faith and bought a Tokina 11-16/2.8 for my D300. Fingers crossed.</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

My vote would be for the Nikon 20 f2.8 lens, a colleague of mine shoots with one on his D300's<br>

and the shots look great, good contrast and very sharp. The only problem is that new it sells for over<br>

$500, Keh and Adorama both have it listed at over $400 used. Maybe you can find one on ebay<br>

that would fit your budget. Or you may need to expand your budget if you do not want to buy a<br>

third party lens. BTW, if your shooting groups, and you have limited space for backing up, you will<br>

need the extra coverage of a 20mm or wider lens on the D90 camera. <br>

Thanks, John Mirra</p>

<p>I think the problem with any DX lens is that as Nikon moves to more and more full frame DSLR's the need for DX will go down. So your ability to recover any investment will be reduced with time.</p>

<p>However, a full frame lens works on both formats. So you will have more customers to sell to.</p>

<p>That is unless you have a lot of money and its not an issue. But as a 24 year old on a PhD's income, every penny needs to be a worthwhile investment.</p>

<p>R</p>

<p>I find the comments DX lenses, will soon be worthless quite amusing.<br>

The fact that 98% (guess) Nikon DSLR's are DX, suggests there will be a market for them for quite some time.</p>

<p>Also many classic Nikkor lenses do not have very good IQ when used with FX cameras. I can imagine when FX sensors are 30mp plus. Lots of current "Pro" lenses will be downgraded to poor performers.<br>

Nikon will be very happy if camera development require, the purchase of replacement FX lenses.</p>