steffen_kluge1 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I loved my 24mm/f2.8. In fact, it was one of my favourite lenses - small, dramatic and good wide open (I used to use slow chromes). I eyed 20mm and below numerous times but could never afford them. For me 24 was the wide end. Then came the 1.5 inflation. It brought me super tele lengths at no extra cost, but my teles (180 and 300, and 2x) get at most 10% of my shots. The bulk is the wide range. And that just got narrowed to 36mm. Hmm. Had a look at the DX wides - all zooms, slow, super expensive although probably cheaper to design/make (smaller image circle). I'm now trying to decide which of the good old (AiS is fine) wide primes are worth hunting for. A 20 is most likely what I'll be getting, but it won't be nearly as wide as my 24 used to be. The 18 and 15 look verrry desirable, but are worth more than their weight in gold. Assuming that this must be a common dilemma, I'd like to hear what others have ended up doing about the "wide gap". Are there any non-Nikon lenses I should look at? Cheers Steffen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 For me, the 12-24mm/f4 DX solves pretty much all of those problems, except that f4 is on the slow side. But what works for me doesn't necessarily work for you. That is why we say, "your mileage may vary." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steffen_kluge1 Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Shun Cheung, I agree. That lens looks like the answer. The extra stop is something I could probably live comfortably with when using a D2H. However, over here it sells at around $2000 (Australian). This is way beyond what I can justify, After all, I'm an amateur and make hardly any money from my pics. Cheers Steffen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I didnt <em>Go digital</em> I added digitalso I still have film bodies and therefore super wide down to 15/5.6,thats my solution (for now).<br><br>The 12~24/4.0G ED-IF AF-S DX and 14/2.8D AF are available. 12mmon DX gets you an angle of view like that of 18~19mm on filmdepending on your DSLR. 14mm gives the same as 21~22mm. The 20/2.8DAF or 20/2.8 AIS only gets you a view similar to 30~31mm. Not toosuper?<br><br>If you sold out of film SLR(s) you have two choices: buy anotherfilm body or buy a new lens.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Dave Hartman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I purchased a used Sigma 14mm f3.5 lens which I found to work very well on my D70 (when I had one, since sold it). I now shoot full-frame 14mm on my F3HP. The 2.8 version is improved somewhat, from what I hear, but I've never shot with one. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Steffen, I don't see why you cannot mail order from B&H and pay US$940 or so for the 12-24 DX. In fact, I have some friends in Sydney and that is exactly what they do on a regular basis. Today, 1 US$ is like 1.25 Australian dollar, which is a lot more favorable to you compared to 3 years ago when I visited Australia, when it was 1 US$ = 1.8 A$ back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickpro Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I have a 17-35mm and everyday I put it on the D100 it makes me wish digital cameras didn't have that crop factor. If you are on a budget consider the tokina lens. It is not as sharp as the Nikon but it is a lot cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m3 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Sorry but I have to dispute the statement "The 18 and 15 look verrry desirable, but are worth more than their weight in gold." Gold is at about US$475 right now. The 18mm weighs 12 oz, the 12-24mm a shocking 1.07 lbs. So that puts the 18mm at $5700 and the 12-24 at $8132. At those prices, the lenses you want are down right affordable compared to gold! Buy 'em both!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I've had pretty nice results with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 DX for about half the price of the Nikon ($499 at B&H). I haven't shot the Nikon and the Tokina head to head, but the Tokina has certainly met my expectations for getting me back to 'wide', albeit in a slow zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wm._kleimenhagen Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 If 24mm is wide enough for you check out the Sigma 15-30mm (full frame)zoom. You will get a 22mm wide on your digital. http://makeashorterlink.com/?K12632F0C I just purchased a new one over the web for $299. from Cameta Camera in NY. Now that is affordable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I agree with Todd. Shot the Tokina side by side with my Nikon 12-24. The Tokina is roughly equivelant to the Nikkor (better in some ways, worse in others). It's a heck of a bang for the buck. Should end up around 600 AUD from B&H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I think the most reasonable course of action is the 12-24 DX Nikkor. It's cheap compared to the primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 $940 is not exactly "cheap" to me, Ilkka. How much do you think your dream APS-C wide prime(s) would cost, BTW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steffen_kluge1 Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Thanks for all the answers, they give me a lot to ponder about. Better start saving soon... Peter, regarding the angle light hits the sensor, I hadn't heard if this particular issue before. Is it documented that film Nikkors perform worse with digital bodies? I always thought they'd be better with digital since the area where they usually show their weaknesses the most gets cropped. Looking at my 24/f2.8, the rear element, while not very big is still quite far away from the film plane (some 40mm at infinity focus). Even in the corners of the frame the angle would still be pretty steep (less than 30 degrees from perpendicular, for rays emanating from the centre of the rear element). With digital sensors it would naturally get steeper anyway. Cheers Steffen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Vivek, I estimate the 13 mm f/2.8 DX AF would cost about $300 at B&H. But it's not a constant aperture zoom (those are pricey). The 12-24 is also high-priced because it was the first DX lens and there was a huge demand initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Also, if you buy 14/2.8, 18/2.8, 20 mm f/2.8, and 24 mm f/2.8, that totals about $4000. This is why I said the 12-24 is comparatively cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_altmann Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I would definitely get the Tokina 12-24. It really is a nice lens, equivalent of a 18-36 mm FF lens. Furthermore it is made of metal and has a very worthly feel and touch. The optics seem to be comparable to the 2x as expensive Nikon model, with people and reviewers favouring one or the other in roughly equal numbers. It is only 499 at B+H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannu Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 <p><i>Assuming that this must be a common dilemma, I'd like to hear what others have ended up doing about the "wide gap". Are there any non-Nikon lenses I should look at?</i> <p>I bought Nikkor 20/2.8 and Sigma 14/3.5 used, then 12-24 new and sold the Sigma (it has bad flare problem due to bulbous front element). The 20 I use mainly for film but it's too cute to part with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_muntz Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I've thought about the Tokina, but haven't bought anything yet. I've heard of a lot of inconsistencies with QC although the two Tokina lenses I've owned have been very good. I'm going to hold out and see what happens with Nikon's Christmas rebates this year. The 12-24DX has never had a rebate that I have seen, but it's been out awhile and maybe now's the time. I've waited this long, I can wait another month or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Hannu - I made a slip on "digital" lens hood for my Sigma 14mm f3.5 and she settled right down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now