wide angle lenses for D70

Hey guys I just read Dan Browns question about a wide angle prime for

the D100. I have a D70 and am looking for something very similar. I

just bought a 50mm 1.8 lense and love it. Now I need a prime at around

20-24 . I will be using this lense for landscapes primarily. I need

somthing with sharp images even at F16 and f22. I would also like

something in the 1.8-2.8 range. If you have had any good expiriences

with a particular lense on a D100 or D70 please let me know. My

biggest concern is overall sharpness. I am particularly interested in

side by side comparisons similar to Dan Browns article on the 50mm 1.4

vs the 50mm 1.8. If only he had posted that a week before I bought my

lense!!! (I still love the 1.8 but the image quality was much sharper

with the 1.4)

 

I really am not satisfied at all with the 17-80 kit lense. I dont

think I am alone, go on e-bay and look at all the used ones for sale!!

 

Thanks

<I> Now I need a prime at around 20-24</i><P>

 

Is that in real focal length or in 'APS-eqivalent-of-35mm-film' focal length? In the former

case, Nikon makes 20 and 24 mm lenses that are highly regarded. Sigma makes 20/1.8

and 24/1.8 lenses with reputations that are less unambiguous (to use a double

negative).<P>

 

In the latter case, I think your only choices are the Nikon, Sigma, or .... Tamron? Tokina?

14/2.8 lenses. Or you could get the 12-24 from Nikon or Sigma or their Tamron/Tokina

equivalents (slower than you want)

You won't be able to find a lens for 35mm film or smaller formats that is sharp at f/22, it's difraction limited, no clever optical design can help here.

<p>I own the 24mm and found it be a sharp lens with the D70. My needs where different

than yours though (I use it mostly in low-light situation either wide open or up to f/5.6)

and I don't own another prime wide-angle to compare. There's no doubt it is sharper than

the kit lens though.

<p>I had a chance to try the 12-24DX and found it to be very convenient to handle. AFS is

fantastic, as always, and you get a true wide-angle coverage. However it was not my

camera so I don't know how sharp the lens is.

<p>--ben

anectodally only: the 12-24 is quite sharp edge to edge. used one saturday at a wedding in low light with flash (not the best circumstances, i know). though it was pretty much wide open, the in focus areas edge to edge were great. i'm sure you can find a review on the web - that is if the price isn't prohibitive. i did find that it was too wide for me to justify purchase, but i can always go to dad's discount rental house!

You didn't mention a price range. It's steap but

I love my 17-35mm f2.8D AFS, and it is sharp at every opening that I can see.

<br>

For a review of this lens (and almost every other Nikon lens) see Bjorn's site (excellent reading)

<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/17_35_review.html#top

<br>

(flame ON) Because of the limits on formatting and posting to these forums you'll have to cut and paste the url yourself. ARGH why don't we go back to stone tablets and a chisel .. spammers won't be able to do much with those either, except throw them, of course they are also useless for communication... hmmm remind you of somewhere... BRIAN YOU NEED TO REVISIT THIS SET OF @#$%%y DECISIONS. I argue for BB friendly input capability and now we can't even post a link url... (flame off)

<br>

sorry got sidetracked - anyway go look at Bjorn's site for reviews of most of the wide angles and thier limitations.

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/17_35_review.html#top">http://www.naturfotograf.com/17_35_review.html#top</a>

seems to work for me

Thanks for posting the link.

How come when I tried to use the link title= url= it said

I couldn't use it on this site. What's the other archane

method of posting a url?

 

I'm not nor do I intend to ever be a @#$% web designer, I want to post

information. This having to know the right incantations sucks rocks. EOM

it's plain jane standard HTML

Dan, I am curious....Why do you shoot a wide angle lens using f16 or 22 for landscapes? As noted, diffraction will degrade image sharpness with those small stops. For sharpness, f 8 or 11 with a good solid tripod and a cable release (or electronic release for digital cameras) is hard to beat. If the answer is "maximum depth of field", how much depth is a practical necessity? Keep in mind that as depth increases resolution decreases. Three stops down is a general compromise.

 

Also, regarding the 50mm lens comparisons, I would be more interested in f8 or 11. The f1,4 may be sharper wide open, but how much landscape work is shot wide open?

Thanks for all the advice guys. Ken your advice in particular was very helpful. I was not aware of image diffraction at F22 or F16 and you are right the only reason I shot that way was for MDOF. I always use a tripod and electronic or cable release. 3 stops down...I will try this thank you.

 

Ken does this work the same way on medium format cameras? I own a mamiya 645 pro TL and would like to shoot more with it... The film and processing cost so much though!!

Dan, this should work with all formats. I work mostly with 35 and 4x5. While the optical diffraction is fixed, the application may influence its importance. For example, a 16x20 print may look bad, but a 5x7 or 8x10 size print may not seem to have a problem with human vision. A landscape may suffer less than a copy of a document with very sharp type. I routinely use f22 or 32 with 4x5, and will use f45 when I have to. On the other hand, I remember a favorite image of tree back made with a Nikon 85mm lens at f22 and enlarged to 11x14 which disappointed me with sharpness. (made on a solid tripod)

 

I suggest you set up a test shot. I did this with my Nikon 300M(4x5 lens). I chose one of the town parks with a chain link fence in the distance. This particular lens stops down to f128, which I'm sure was added by the marketing department, not the optical group. The lens is very sharp, but not at 128! Do a series of test shots using the entire range of your apertures. Looking at your prints or through a loupe will tell the tale and you will know.

 

I believe this "under your fingernails" kind of knowledge is most valuable.

 

As an aside, I am a new user with the D70. I bought the 28 to 80 zoom with the camera. I have no optical illusions about the lens. However, it cost me only $100 like new, and it only weighs six ounces. I recently added a 50 f1.8. I really like it. The effective length (75mm in 35mm terms) is very close to my favorite lens, the 85mm f2. The 50 seems plenty sharp, very fast, and is light and compact. I think it is an ideal lens. I don't see where the f1.4 is worth the considerable added expense.

 

For a wider lens for landscapes, I would look into the 24. I am very pleased with my manual focus 24 (the f2.8). With an effective 35mm focal length of 36mm, the 24 is not really wide. You might eventually want to add a wider lens. However, I have found the 35mm (film length) to be an extremely useful lens. It's hands down the most useful length for groups of people (three or more). I like it for landscape and for candids. With a 24 and a 50 you would have a very compact, lightweight outfit capable of handling almost every situation. (Caveat: I don't use lenses longer than 85mm, so expect some disagreement.)

 

Try the test shots. It will be time well and enjoyably spent.

Ken,

 

You sure are right about the under your nails advice. It is the best hands down... Its real easy to blame the equipment and go out and buy a new camera when you are constantly learning. I am running some trials this week. I am probably going to take your advice on the 24mm as well. It seems that we have similar shooting tastes. Thanks for your help. Hey if you ever need a hand with digital imaging let me know its what I went to school for...e-mail at dam778@gwi.net