Affordabe Nikon DSLR wide angle.

[david_thomas8]

Can you buy a DSLR wide angle PRIME lens (say 18mm) that gives

improved performance over the D70 18-70 kit lens (in terms of

maximum f and optical quality), and is still reasonably affordable?

 

P.S. It does not have to be a Nikkor lens.

[rob_malkin]

maybe the sigma 20mm f1.8. i have had one for a few months now and like it a lot. but then again i got it for its max f stop only. image quality was not primary importance to me.

 

as far as image quality goes, its fine. same as my 18-70 really.

 

r

[Ed_Ingold]

I suggest you search www.bhphotovideo.com for ideas. Yes, there are wide-angle primes available that someone finds affordable. Unfortunately, even a Nikon 20mm/2.8 costs more than the 18-70, which itself is a reasonably good lens by most accounts. The prices increase dramatically the shorter the focal length.

 

The optical quality of a 17-35/2.8 is superlative, and the 17-55/2.8 DX is nearly as good. Both are in the same price bracket as a Nikkor 14/2.8, and not much more than an 18/2.8. Many people find them affordable, because these zooms get the job done, cover an highly useful range, and minimize the changing of lenses (hence dust on the sensor).

 

This begs the question, if you replace a general purpose zoom lens with a single prime lens, why would you want a super wide angle lens?

[ShunCheung]

The 18-70mm kit lens is a fairly good one. The main problems are very serious distortion near 18mm and vignetting at the corners at wide open near 18mm. Unless you shoot architecture or something with straight lines near the edges, some distoration is not a big deal. And you can reduce the vignetting by stopping down.

 

Otherwise, you need to be more specific about which focal length you want and what is "reasonably affordable" to you, in terms of price. The 20mm/f2.8 AF-S is a good suggestion as a moderate wide angle (for Nikon DSLRs) at $400+ or so. The 18mm/f2.8 AF-D is over $1000.

 

If you are willing to spend over $1000, there are those excellent zooms Edward mentioned.

[aravind raman]

Why can't you buy a Nikon Film Camera, and use some wide (ordinary) lens for those conditions?

 

You can also use the film camera, if you find a really good shot and would like to blow it up.

[bryan_lardizabal]

Have a look at the Tokina 17mm f3.5 AT-X AF PRO lens for around $389 US. The

optics are very good on this all metal barrel lens. I have a 28-70mm f2.8 ATX Pro

lens and am very happy with it, so I think the 17mm would be equally as good.

[david_h._hartman]

The 18mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor is a good wide angle. The problem is

they arent cheap. An 18mm lens on the DX formats only

affords an angle of view like that of a 28mm lens on full format

(24x36mm). A really wide prime lens for the DX formats is

something of a Holy Grail.<br>

<br>

Whats needed is a 12.5mm (they wont mark one a 13mm)

DX lens with an aperture of maybe f/2.5. Cross your fingers like

the X in DX.<br>

<br>

Here is Bjorn Rorsletts take on the 18/2.8 AF Nikkor...<br>

<br>

<em>Heavier and bulkier than its MF relative, the faster 18 mm is

troubled with residual colour aberrations and these flaws tend to

make its colour rendition dull, greyish, and devoid of sparkle.

High-lights clearly show visible fringing. I briefly tested this

lens and didn't like it at all. --BR </em><br>

<br>

I owned the older 18/4.0 AI Nikkor and didnt like it. Ive

never owned any other 18mm. I bought a salesmans sample of

the 15/5.6 AI and never felt a need to close the gap between 15mm

and 20mm. The gap isnt so small. Bjorn Rorslett has never

steered me wrong.<br>

<br>

Here are a couple of links...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ky2]

Uncle Bob has a favorable review of the Tamron 17-35/2.8~4 Di, which is available for Nikon F mount. It's very affordable (slightly over $400) but its not a prime lens.

[eskoufos]

One of the most inexpensive options would be the Zenitar 16mm 2.8 fisheye. You can get it with an N mount new at about $130-150. Is not a bad lens, some flare, but pretty sharp in the center. It is a MF lens with an AI compatible mount. Good luck

[vivek iyer]

I have been searching for one, found none that is satisfactory. Now I was forced to fabricate an ultrawide (about 13mm) and a wide (about 22mm) with macro focusing feature. Took me quite a bit of time but it appears that I got what I need (check out couple of examples I have in my space).

 

If you have bought Canon, atleast you can use some spectacular Zeiss Distagons on them with an adaptor.

 

Nikon does not have a satisfactory wide angle lens for its DSLRs. Yes, there are zoomms. I don't want them. Older wide angle lenses may not perform all that well on a DSLR.

 

Dave Hartmann has mentioned that he does not like his 15mm on a DSLR.

 

Good luck with your search!

[lex_jenkins]

Personally, I think autofocus is superfluous for ultrawide lenses. For one thing all ultrawides are fiddly to focus because there's so little travel between infinity and close range. If I'm using an aperture of at least f/5.6 I just let DOF take care of the fudge factor.

 

The Tamron Adaptall 17mm f/3.5 manual focus lens is pretty good for the money. And with the right adapter it wil fit on almost any 35mm SLR you happen to own. I have Nikon and Olympus OM mounts for my Adaptalls.

 

I'll attach a couple of photos taken with that lens at a local saddlery yesterday. The Tamron isn't the sharpest ... tack (sorry, couldn't resist) ... in the toolbox, but it's not bad and is much better corrected for barrel distortion and field curvature than the 18-70 kit zoom at its widest end.

 

The Tamron also has a couple of color correction filters and a yellow filter built in, adjustable via a ring at the front of the barrel. It really needs either the clamp-on tulip shaped lens shade or reasonable care to avoid flare. It's not especially prone to iris shaped flare or ghosting but veiling flare can spoil contrast.

 

I was lucky enough to find the lens in good used condition in one Austin shop and the lens hood for five bucks in another shop the same day.

 

I've also had an older Vivitar ultra wide (17mm or 19mm, don't recall which). It was built as well as a Series 1 but didn't perform like one. Pretty bad barrel distortion, field curvature and coma. I ditched it.

[lex_jenkins]

Oops, forgot to attach the sample photos.

 

Both were jpeg captures taken using my D2H, ISO 200, 1/60th @ f/11, (I) sRGB setting in the camera. I tweaked the jpegs in Capture to bump the white point very slightly and used the sharpening and noise removal tools. There were a few barely discernable jellyfish in the bright blue sky, which is pretty typical, tho' they wouldn't have been visible in these resized full frame versions anyway.

 

These photos weren't taken to illustrate how the lens performs but they are the best I have available with at least some straight lines more or less near the frame edges. And you can see that there's not much field curvature - you really have to study the "wrong" kind of image pretty hard to see any. A long diagonal line running the full length of the frame would show just a little distortion.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

Nice to see some example shots from the 17mm Tamron, Lex. Here is a sample shot (with an unwilling model in my 4 year old) of my wide. This is a close range (about 1.5 foot) shot, f/11, 1/60s, handheld, D70. No tweaking. Slightly cropped.<div></div>