Looking to go wider... lens recommendations?

[david_littleboy]

Recently I had the opportunity to play around with a fixed 14mm lens and had a lot of fun with it. So I've been

thinking of ways to reconfigure my lens collection in order to accommodate wider angle 'street' photography

without breaking the bank. At present I use the following lenses on my D70: a Tamron 28-75/2.8, a Nikon 50/1.8,

and a Nikon 70-300/4-5.6. My favorite and most used lens is the 50/1.8, but I find myself wishing it were a bit

wider... maybe 35mm. I love its performance in low light in any case.

 

Initially I was looking at the Tokina / Nikon 12-24s and the Sigma 10-20, but those are all just a little more

expensive than what I want to spend. Then it hit me that I might be able to sell off some lenses and consolidate.

So currently I'm considering selling the Tamron and buying a Nikon 16-85 or 18-70. I like that the 16-85 has VR

and a 16mm focal length at the wide end, but it just seems a bit expensive to me. Another idea I'm considering is

selling the Tamron AND the Nikon 70-300 and purchasing an 18-200. Fixed lenses actually appeal to me the most,

but, like the 14mm that initially sparked my interest, wide ones are really expensive.

 

I've allowed myself to spend about $400 USD + whatever I can get from selling my current lenses. To recap, my

ideal lens collection would include: a street photo lens, a portrait / telephoto lens, and a quick fixed lens

like the 50/1.8 but a bit wider (a 35/2 maybe)?

 

Help much appreciated. Thank you!

[robert_hooper1]

35mm on DX is not wide. The Nikon 16-85mm has the reputation of being a good performer, but the lens is way slow, in

my opinion, for street photography. The 18-70mm is faster, but no VR, which wouldn't bother me. It would be a good

budget choice.

 

You had fun with a 14mm prime. I think you would have more fun with a Nikon 12-24mm, or Tokina 12-24mm to save

money. Both are reputedly to be near to each other in sharpness, though the Tokina supposedly has a more of a

tendency to flare. Watch for "sample variation" if you decide to go with the Tokina. Test it for uniform sharpness at the

sides of the image and top to bottom. If one side is sharper than the other, exchange it.

 

Might as well test the Nikon, too.

[z_newbie]

Dude My Serious advise to you is to save up to buy and buy Once something decent than to buy something crappy.

 

Your Tamron lens sounds good (although I neven tried Tamron) What you should have gotten was Nikon 18-70mm AFS but I don't think it will go down till 2.8 as your Tamron. Your 70-300mm lens is so so if its not a VR. as it require pretty steady hand when shooting with Higher Zoom or a tripod. And no question bout 50mm lens as it is one of the best and the Cheapest lens made by Nikon-- I love it too.

 

Sigma 10-20mm HSM DC EX that you mentioned is an awesome lens, I own it for more than a year now and love it (it is pricey, yes I waited too, to save up enough to buy it right and good for the first time) I will highly recommend it.

 

Hope this helps

[tdlavigne]

Have you considered the Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm 2.8? Retails for about $600 and is wider than you need but is also fast. I've heard a lot of good things about this lens and am trying to save up for it myself. Then you've got the Tokina 16-50mm 2.8 which is a little more, but gives you more range. 12-24 is $480, but isn't 2.8. The sigma 10-20 is only $460 if you don't need the extra f-stops. Pretty much all of these should be within your budget if you have $400 and are selling some others.

[philippartridge]

First, David, what are you focal length interests? I have a Tokina 12-24, and it is a bit gimmicky at the wide end unless you are after 'fun' results, also it is heavy, takes big filters, and tops out at an effective 36mm - I often find that to be a handicap; don't like carrying three zooms for every eventuality, with lots of changing. For street use around the effective 50mm mark (so about a 35mm FL) many guys like the Sigma 30/1.4.

 

I now have a 16-85 VR for travel...very sharp, pretty well-controlled distortion, AF-S and magic VR but not fast if you need subject isolation. A sleeper few have ever seen is the Nikkor 45/2.8P, a tiny 120 gram Tessar 4 element wonder lens, reminiscent of some of the slow Fuji LF or MF lenses. Fine detail rendering and made like a fine instrument - yes, it is older than the plastic fantastic lenses like the 50s: 1.4 and 1.8. If your 70-300 is not the VR, do consider selling it and buying one - really a very good lens and VRII makes it work just fine - also good for FX for when the time comes.

 

For true normal, I use an AIS 28/2 (42mm effective FL), very nice results even down at f11..but the 28/2.8 (later series) is also very good reputedly - both focus close and do good corners on DX. Check out Photozone for test results, Bjorn Rorslett for informed expert opinion, Nikon Cafe lens forum for endless raves and debates on Nikkor lenses, and Nikonians for a bit of everything Nikon. best, philip.

[craig_gillette]

If you like the Tamron 28-75, you might want to consider just adding on at the wider end. My gut feel is that if you sell off what you have for a different mix, you may not make enough selling to return to both a better range and equivalent quality. The 18-200 is popular and flexible but isn't fast and isn't stellar optically. Not bad by any means but not going to knock your socks off either.

 

What I'd suggest considering is the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 which is the wider counterpart to the 28-75. The problem there is it's still only 17mm wide. The Tokina 12-24 is wider but there is a gap in a fairly useful range. Going with either of those will allow you to keep your current kit. With the Tamron 28-75 selling for under $350 new, it isn't going to go a long way to help with alternatives.

[eric_arnold]

"Your Tamron lens sounds good (although I neven tried Tamron) What you should have gotten was Nikon 18-70mm AFS but I don't think it will go down till 2.8 as your Tamron."

 

zeeshan, the tamron 28-75 has much better IQ than the nikon 18-70 besides being a constant 2.8. despite not having AF-S it's not slow to focus by any means.

 

david, i'd keep the tamron. the 18-70 could be a disappointing "downgrade". the 16-85 could possibly work for you, but it's fairly slow and fairly expensive for what it delivers. i doubt you'd get more than $50-$75 for the nikon 70-300 (assuming it's the G model; the ED model will sell for around $200 new) so you might as well keep that. forget the 18-200 unless you are a professional tourist.

 

you might be able to get a tokina 12-24 used for $400-$450; new they're about $500. i'd choose that over the sigma 10-20 because of constant f/4 aperture and extra 4mm on the long end, which is where you'll be shooting a lot if you use this for street. i have both the tamron and the tokina and can tell you they pair well together. i don't really miss the 24-28 range with this combo--just take two or three steps forward--but missing the 20-28 range might be irksome, so i'd avoid the sigma 10-20. ditto the 11-16, which would give you an even bigger gap, although it is a 2.8. sounds like you dont really do much landscapes, so 12mm might be wide enough.

 

another possibility would be the sigma 15-30, a real sleeper. you can get that new for around $400-$450; it originally sold for $800. it's main disadvantage is its size, which doesnt lend itself to street shooting.

 

in any event, how long will it take you to save up $50-$100? no need to panic and/or hold a fire sale.

[Two23]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and it is very good. However, I recently bought the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and it is stunning. If you don't need the f2.8, the Sigma has bigger range and might be more useful. If you need f2.8 the Tokina 11-16mm is a no-brainer. Better image quality than ANY other ultrawide, too.

 

 

Kent in Californy

[marcelfrank]

I use my 50 mm 1.8 AF-D mostly, but also bought a Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 which is going to be replaced by the Nikkor 20 mm 2.8 AF-D. I would recommend the Tamron too (I guess I won't sell it to use it again on FX in hmm ... 2011), you will be able to use it on FX in several years too. A used Nikkor 20 and a new Tamron 17-35 are fitting your limit. To be honest the Nikkor has just arrived and I would pretend that the Nikkor 20 performs better than Tamron in close range (CRC ?) and is really smart to handle. Even if the pictures quality is nearly the same, I'll feel more comfortable with the prime ... --- If <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Q4aE" target="_blank">these issues (link)</a> are solved I could provide some "sample images" (mounted on D50), let me know what you'd like to see (and which settings).