Wide-angle lens after Nikon AF-S DX 18-135 mm

[john_m20]

<p>Hi<br>

I have had a D80 for awhile now, and so far have just been using the 18-135mm lens that came with it. On the whole I am pleased with it (notwithstanding severe barrel distortion at max focal length).<br>

However, most of my photography is landscapes so I am looking at purchasing a fixed focal length wide-angle lens since I don't need the extra weight of the zoom to 135, and would like the faster speed (and maybe better optical quality?). <br>

I have been looking at the Nikon 24mm f2.8 AF D, which seems reasonably priced (I'm just an amateur so not particularly willing to spend 1000 GBP + on a lens) but, since my zoom starts at 18mm, it's left me wondering whether it's even worth me making the change, since the focal length will actually be longer than that on my current lense.<br>

Can anyone suggest whether going for this lens (or another Nikon wide-angle for that matter) makes sense? Will there be a noticeable difference in image quality that justifies the move from the zoom lense I have currently?<br>

thanks very much<br>

john</p>

[elliot1]

<address>No, it probably would not make any sense and you would likely not see any differrence in IQ. But an ultra wide, something in the 10/11/12mm to 20/24mm range may make you a happy camper if you are so inclined.</address>

[rarmstrong]

<p>I agree with Elliot. If you like wide, I'd look at the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 11-17. The 24 mm prime is equivalent to 36 mm on your D80 which is really not wide.</p>

[richard_thomas9]

<p>John, I have the 24 2.8D and it is indeed a good price. I however don't have the 18-135 so I can't tell you which one has better optics but my 24 2.8D has a fast af and an above average image quality, not as good as the 50mm 1.8D I think. Before buying the Nikon, I did compare it against the Sigma 24mm 1.8D. The Sigma was very soft at 1.8 and no difference than the Nikon at 2.8. I do agree with everyone that it doesn't make sense for you to get this lens since you pretty much covered this area. As everyone suggests, I would go with the Sigma 10-20 3.5, Tokina 11-16 2.8, etc. G'luck!</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>John,</p>

<p>May I suggest you conduct a brief review of what you consider your best 15-20 'Landscape' images and see which focal lengths they were taken at. This may offer you some personal insight into the answer to your own question.</p>

<p>As for IQ improvement I'd be very disappointed if I was unable to get better results from the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D over your current kit lens at 24mm but this might be all academic......</p>

<p>If what you mean by 'Landscape' is broad panoramic scenes then 24mm will disapoint you as a focal length. On DX, like others have pointed out, you might want to consider 12mm / 14mm to shoot wide panoramic scenes and thus the third party wide angle zooms might be more your cup of tea.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Do you really need "fast" when shooting landscapes (presumably, froma tripod)? Most of the time you're going to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 or f/8 anyway, so this comes down more to which focal length you actually like. Your current zoom lens can tell you if 24mm is actually helpful to you or not... but I'd say that if you stop it down to f/8, and then try the 24/2.8 <em>also</em> stopped down to f/8, you're going to have a pretty hard time telling the difference.<br /><br />The kit zoom will show a lot more stress at either the longer or shorter ends of its range, or when used wide open.<br /><br />In terms of visual interest, I tend to agree that the 10-20 or another of the better ultra-wide zooms will turn out to be far more useful. Note that not all of the ultrawides available have the in-lens focus motors that your D60 requires. The Nikons do, and the Sigmas.</p>

[bernie_kwong]

<p>Just tried the new 10-24mm, the build quality is poor compare to 12-24mm, so cheap plastic feel.  For the same money, I will stay with the 12-24mm</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have used the 24mm f2.8 on a D70, D200 and D700. I am happy with that focal length in either format. I purchased a 35mm f2 with the D700. When I had DX I used this lens for everything because of its field of view, speed and size. I don't consider it much of a wide angle in DX but still very good for landscapes if it fits your style. If you want a prime I suggest like above you look at the EXIF data and see what focal length you use the most. I have used the wide zooms available from Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 and liked them all. IMHO its just a matter of picking the zoom that most fits your needs. </p>

[Two23]

<p>You might consider the Nikon kit lens 18-55mm. It's very inexpensive but the optics are very good. I haven't tried a 24mm lens, but suspect the 18-55mm might outperform it overall.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>My second body is a D50 and I keep a 24mm f2.8 almost permanently attached. Makes a nice compact outfit with a little bit of WA . It's not super wide but gives you many more options than a 35mm f2 or a 50mm f1.8 or 1.4</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I researched this for a LONG time before finally buying one last year...</p>

<p>In this order...</p>

<p>I'd get a Tokina 12-24, the new one with a built-in motor in case you want to get a camera body in the future that only supports AF-S or equivalent.</p>

<p>If you are a low light snob (like me), then an 11-16 f2.8. I bought one a year ago (and reviewed it right here on photo.net) and I continue to love it.</p>

<p>If you are fairly certain you MUST have 10mm I'd wait and see what happens with the new Sigma. I find 11mm to be just fine, and didn't like the build and crazy moustache distortion of the Sigma.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Try Sigma 10-20 like Richard mentioned 24mm on 1.5 crop sensor gives you 36mm and that is not that wide.<br>

I personally use Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and shoot at 17 but that's just me.</p>

[john_m20]

<p>Hi guys, thanks a lot for all your answers, they have been very useful for me. I think I will have a look for the sigma or tamron ! cheers and all the best, john</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>honestly, i'd get the tokina 12-24. i used that with a d80 for a while before upgrading to a d300. the 12-24 is really really good at 18-24mm and 5.6-f/8. consider it a bonus that you also get a zoom which goes to 12mm. the tokina is as good as the soon-to-be discontinued nikon 12-24/4, and costs half as much. the older versions were going for $400 a while back at adorama. i wouldn't get the sigma 10-20 unless you mainly plan shooting at 10mm.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>honestly, i'd get the tokina 12-24.<<br>

+1 </p>