What is the best quality wide lens for a Nikon D90?

<p>Does anyone know what the best wide angle primary autofocus digital lens for a Nikon D90? Ideally I

would want an 18mm, but they don't make one. I don't like zooms either because they are slower and heavier. I have

been thinking of a 20mm, but it is a little longer than I want and the price is low, so I suspect the performance. In my

experience with Nikon over the years, you get exactly what you pay for. Should I forget Nikon and get an M8? It

would be nice to get lenses that work on my earlier M cameras, but I am afraid that the M8 isn't going to be good

enough for large prints. Any friendly input welcomed.</p>

<p>Well, I would have waited for a full frame camera if you really love wide angles.<br>

Come on, the 20 too long, your not going to do much better for the price, and I wouldnt recommend buying up too many DX lenses with Nikon releasing more and more FX cameras.<br>

Personally, Id go with the 20mm 2.8D very sharp, quite fast and also not so big to be a nuisance to carry. C<br>

It also fouses very fast due to the fact that a quarter turn takes it from 10" to infinity, so on your D90 it will be fast!</p>

<p>The M8 is hated by most who bought one, and I wouldnt recomend that you become part of the club.</p>

<p>Unless it has been discontinued, Nikon does make a fixed, 18/2.8 lens, for about $1500. For that you could get a 17-55/2.8 DX or 17-35/2.8 full frame lens, every bit as good optically. 20mm on a D90 is only "wide", equivalent to 30mm. Again, the 17-35 is justs as good and a lot more flexible (I have both).</p>

<p>The M8 is a well-respected camera. Of all the Leicas, it is the only model I've seen in use in the last two years. You could expect to get a good 11x14 inch print and a pretty good 16x24, which is more than I would foist on the paying public from 35mm film. If you already have Leica lenses and like the "rangefinder" type of photography, give the M8 some thought.</p>

<p>Nikon made a 18mm f/2.8 - reportedly not exactly a stellar performer. There is a 14mm f/2.8 - like the 18mm quite pricey. The 20mm f/2.8 also gets mixed reviews but at least the price is more reasonable. Since you are contemplating a Leica M8, maybe money isn't so much an issue. You could get a Leica Elmarit 19mm f/2.8 and exchange the Leica mount for a Nikon mount (www.leitax.com) - stop-down metering is the best you can expect then though and it is manual focus of course.</p>

<p>Most things I'be heard about the 18 f/2.8 prime are not good. But I've never tried one.</p>

<p>If we put all the "common sense" about purchasing/selecting lenses aside. The 14-24 f/2.8 is hands down the best Nikkor covering its FL range for both DX and FX. Obviously it does have a few practical issues. It doesn't take filters, and the front element is huge (which could be vulnerableto damages and so on). Its zoom range is short, so it can't do it all; and it's expensive and heavy. FX users find it to be too wide for normal use, while many DX users consider it to be a waste of resources. Nevertheless, for the few times I got to use it, I found it to be optically superior to the 17-55 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2.8, 12-24 f/4, 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR, and other cheaper lenses for the FLs in which the lenses "overlap" (of course many if not most of the lenses mentioned are all already excellent). It's ridiculously sharp, has good out of focus rendition, minimal distortion for something so wide, minimal vignetting, good resolution, good color production, fast AF, excellent egronomics, and good (metal) built quality.</p>

<p>From as far as I've heard, most of Nikon's AF-D wide primes are not all that good compare to the new zooms. </p>

<p>>> "Should I forget Nikon and get an M8?"</p>

<p>You have to decide whether or not you're ready to let go all of the modern/advanced features the Nikon system offers. </p>

<p>I heard a lot of good things about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Some say it is even better than the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4. I have not personal experience with the lens though.</p>

<p>I tried the 20mm afd for a bit and it wasn't even as sharp as my 18-70mm. The centre was good but that was it and it had a lot more CA. So I sold it, gave the 18-70 to my wife and bought a 17-55mm which is shaper, just as fast, but yeah alot heavier than the 20mm!</p>

<p>Thanks for the answers. It seems that most of you don't think much of the 20mm f2.8. Glad that I asked.</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

I own a 20mm f/2.8. It has a slight vignetting and corners are soft wide open, but I use it on a D700 (FX). For a DX camera, I believe it may give results as good as it gets.<br>

Jonas</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

I own a 20mm f/2.8. It has a slight vignetting and corners are soft wide open, but I use it on a D700 (FX). For a DX camera, I believe it may give results as good as it gets.<br>

Jonas</p>

<p>Funny, just yesterday a couple of us were talking about the 14mm Nikkor prime. Bjorn rated it 3.5-5, depending on which camera you use. Loved it on the D1, really no big fan of it since. The 20/2.8 is rated a bit higher.</p>

<p>If it were me, I would get the 14-24 zoom over the 14mm prime for about the same price with newer coatings and better optics.</p>

 

<p>I was quite happy with my D200 and Nikkor 20mm f2.8. I made some nice shots with the combo. I recently upgraded to a D700 and am trying the older AIS version as suggested by Bjorn at: http://www.naturfotograf.com<br>

IMHO the 20mm f2.8 is the best WA prime available from Nikon. The best Nikkor DX would be the 12-24mm and the best Nikkor wide would be the 14-24 f2.8 zoom. The other zooms mention above are also said to be very good but I have only used the 20mm f2.8's</p>

<p>I have a Nikon 20mm D f2.8 and have never been impressed with it. My Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 seems better. My Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 certainly is better.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I shot with a 20mm f2.8 on my D11 and later on a D300 and it produced nice images (for a 30mm lens) But it was bulky and heavy for a very limited WA. I sold it and eventually got a 24mm f2.8 which is almost as wide on a DSLR, more compact and arguably sharper than the 20mm. I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 zoom which is IMO as good as the Nikkor version at half the price. But is is fairly heavy and bulky. I would like to see something like a 14mm f2.8 DX prime.</p>

<p>I also like to put a vote in for the AF 20mm f/2.8D. It's small, lightweight and well-built. Wide-open there's some vignetting and the corners are soft, especially on digital bodies. I don't regard that as a problem though, it improves when stopping down.<br>

Mine is usually glued to my FM2, although I also like to use it on my D200 for street and indoor photography. My Tokina AT-X 124 is a stop slower, and even though that lens is sharper in comparison, it suffers from more noticeable chromatic aberration and flare when shooting in contra-light. The Tokina is more versatile than the Nikkor, but I use the 20mm f/2.8D more because it's unobtrusive and small. And 62mm filters are quite a bit cheaper than 77mm ones as well...</p>

<p>I have never tested my AF 20mm f2.8D on a DX body. Would it really show the vignetting/corner softness on the crop frames?</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>As you can see you will have to draw your own conclusion, facing much of opposite opinions about 20/2.8.</p>

<p>E.g.: </p>

<p>"I also like to put a vote in for the AF 20mm f/2.8D. It's small, lightweight"</p>

<p>but also you get:</p>

<p>"I shot with a 20mm f2.8 on my D11 and later on a D300 and it produced nice images (for a 30mm lens) But it was bulky and heavy".</p>

<p>Seems you will get similar contradictory opinions on optical quality, flair shooting against the sun, etc.</p>

<p>Best if you could rent before purchasing and see for yourself.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You should check the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X<br>

Search in google for <em >Tokina</em> 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X and use de I'm feeling lucky option. That will take you to the so misunderstood KR site.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>The Nikkor 20/2.8 latest version lens is good and produced very large prints. As with any Nikkor lens you can make very good and pretty bad pictures.</p>

<p>I did encounter some flare with best filters, (excuse the flair), when shooting against the sun, but all lenses do that more or less, especially zoom lenses.</p>

<p>The 20/2.8 is favorite lens of my wife, as she is a less critical person. After all she did marry me and did not notice any of my faults... (~!~). </p>

<p>also think about the tokina 12-24 DX. Any FX lens will not be true wide angle. There is the Nikon 12-24 also, but it's double the price of the Tokina and suposedly not much better.<br>

I love the Tokina 12-24. I now you asked for prime, but you got a DX camera, might as well enjoy the advantages :)</p>

<p>yeah, check out the tokina 11-16 f/2.8. i think someone here referred to it as a 'semi-prime.'<br>

mine is sharp all the way down to f/2.8</p>

<p>I believe, you can afford the 14-24/2.8 it is superior to everything. But you have to have the 24-70/2.8 for the combo. And don,t forget, to forget abut the DX. Go for FX full frame. Specially, if you like taking images with wide angles. I used to have an 18/2.8 in the film era, don't remember how good was. The only problem with the 14-24, you going to use it, mostly at 14. logically the 14/2.8 prime would be better and a good 18, then from 24 up. Or the 14 + 17-35. ( the most logical and useful range in w. angle)(14, in the 5% of the time, and the 17-35, 80% of the time.) If I can start again purchasing this wide end, I would buy the 14/2.8 and the 17-35. I wish also, Nikon producing a lighter super wide 14/3.5 or even better a 14mm f4. At 14 wide you don't need a fast lens anyway. The movement of angle is so small.</p>

<p>For DX ,and thus needing 18mm, there is really only the Nikon 12-24 or the Tokina 11-16. The best prime with as good or better sharpness is conceded by Nikonians to be the 20/f4 AI. They come up rarely, there is one on ebay right now. But its really an FX lens.<br>

Nikon has had a hole in its range with few wide angle primes. If it was me, I would buy the Tokina and when it came time to make the step to FX when the D700 becomes a bit cheaper, sell the Tojina and trade the D90, and then get the 16-35 2.8. Its big but as good as the Canon for sharpness wide open.</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16mm zoom - Almost takes you right up to the 18mm kit start range - it's a constant 2.8, but I know it's not a prime as you requested. The price at B&H when in stock is $569. </p>

<p>For an FX system the Nikon 14-24 is in a league of it's own. A good review of this lens is here. <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13</a><br>

For a DX system I am partial to the Tokina 12-24. A good review is here. <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/178/cat/33">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/178/cat/33</a></p>