D70 optimal wide-angle choice?

[cappoldt]

OK, so here we are - my D70 body is on the way from B&H. Now, after

reading all of the fuss about the glass with the lack of wide-angle,

what should I do? Should I return the body immediately (B&H will

credit my account) and wait for the kit (how long will I wait? Can you

imagine returning? Agh!).

 

If I wait until May, I'll have some more $. I could possibly get the

28mm f1.4, or possibly the less-expensive 18mm f3.5-4.5D?

 

Anyone have thoughts comparing the 18mm above compared to the kit

offering (less $ that way, but again, I'll have to wait), or should I

go with my present and inferior WA zoom, get used to the body, and buy

the 18mm in May?

 

Decisions, decisions . . .just tell me what to do, oh-wise posters.

I'm tired of hand-wringing.

 

 

Chris

[claudio_coltro_coltro]

Chris:

 

I do not know what you mean by wide angle, to me a wide angle is is something in the range of 20-24mm focal lenght on a 24x36mm frame format.

If this is what you understand also, you may consider the Tamron 14mm/2.8. It has a very good resolution, specially on a smaller format than the one it has been designed for (24x36mm) it has virtually no vigneting nor distorsion, which is pretty exceptional at this focal length.

The 14mm/2.8 focal lenght on your D70 would give approximately same view angle as a 20mm on a film camera.

 

Regards

 

Claudio

[ellis_vener_photography]

Well there is the 12-24mm f/4 DX Nikkor , which in my testing was a terrific lens on

either a film or a digital body. Testing with film in an F5 the lens vignetted from 12-

17mm, but even atthe most vignetted (12mm setting) I got a 24 x 24mm square and

there was plenty of v coverage with any of the nikon digital bodies I tried it on. On

your D70 the angle covered is comparable to an 18-36mm zoom on a standard Nikon

film camera.

[plattro]

The AF 28mm 1.4 is a lot of money, and just slightly wider than a normal lens on halfframe digital format.

 

My opinions:

The AF 18-35 is a really good deal. It is a wide- to normal-zoom on a halfframe-digital camera, and good for everyday picture taking. It works fine on film bodies, in all exposure modes. I've had mine for several years now, and I'm happy with it. I used it as a wideangle on a D1 before the 12-24 became available. It still sees regular use, but much less so, now that I have the 12-24.

 

If you're into landscapes, the AFS 12-24 is a real ultrawide on halfframe digital cameras. It is now among the most used lenses on my D1.

 

On a film body, you will see that at f=12mm, the image circle is just 30mm diamater, (Can cause metering problems unless you use centerweighted or spot) but you can crop that to make some real ultrawide panorama shots. I miss the aperture ring, but you can still use it even on older bodies in 'S' & 'P' modes. On non-G-aware film bodies it is a minor pain: 'A' mode underexposes 5 stops, but you can use 'M' mode in stopdown metering using the DOF preview button (since it takes everything at f/22 on such bodies). I've managed to use it successfully on an FM2n this way.

 

From your other posting, it sounds like either the 18-35 or the 12-24 would be better for you, depending on how much you want to use it on film bodies, and how wide you want.

[ShunCheung]

Since you are using (or will be using) a D70 DSLR, why even consider the 18-35mm AF-D? The 18-70mm AF-S DX makes far more sense and also costs less. If you need a very wide lens, the 12-24mm/f4 is the way to go as Ellis points out.

[cappoldt]

Well, what I'm looking for is a great lens for landscapes - a great SHARP lens. . .and am willing to shell out for it. Thanks!

[ShunCheung]

Christopher, for landscape photography, I really like the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S zoom on my film bodies. The 12-24mm/f4 AF-S G DX will give you approximately the same range on the D70. And for landscape, you don't need large apertures so that f4 is just fine as long as the $1000 price tage is ok with you.

 

On the D70, the 28mm/f1.4 is like a 42mm lens for film. It is not quite a wide angle any more, and for landscape, you are just wasting your money on an f1.4 lens, which is designed for indoor, existing-light photography.

[freeside]

If you're a landscape photographer, what are you doing in 35mm / DSLR territory? Spend

your money on a view camera! :)

[gilbert_c1]

If I were in your shoes and money isnt a problem I would consider 17-55mm f2.8DX. Among all Nikkors this one is the only one most worthy getting because of its small size and useful zoom ramge. Dont buy any fixed focal length prime lens for digital. You can get a pen and paper to do some easy math to calculate how sharp a lens is needed for 6MP or even 14MP digital camera. If you do really do this calculation you will find almost all cheap zoom lens have better sharpness than what a 6-14MP digital sensor can resolve.

 

The best adventage of digital is that you can shoot without consideration of film+developing cost thus you can shoot more, in a completely different way than shooting films. If shooting this way prime lens would only degrade your creativity. It's waste to use prime lens if not shooting films. Use zooms for digital!

[ilkka_nissila]

Gilbert, that is absolutely non-sense. The resolution of a lens is meaningless for both film and digital photography. It just describes the spatial frequency where a just measurable signal exists. What is important is how the high frequencies which the sensor or film <i>can</i> resolve clearly are transmitted by the lens. There are noticeable differences in the contrast at dslr-resolvable frequencies between f/2.8 zooms and equivalent prime lenses (my example is 80-200/2.8D N and 180/2.8D). These are clearly visible in 8x12 inch prints from the D70 even hand-held at high shutter speeds. The difference is even more obvious with D70 than film, where it may be hard to see the difference because of the grain. The only difference which isn't visible with these cameras is the corner performance since there the sensor is not there to record corner data. There's no doubt in my mind that these digital cameras make the quality differences between lenses more obvious than with film, provided that you're looking at prints. In projected slides (or files from a film scanner viewed at high magnification), the differences are also quite clear. Detail is badly cluttered by grain when film is used.