Bogley

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Hill AFB, UT

I pose a question to my fellow nikionians...

Which lens(fixed, nikon or 3rd party lens) has the widest field of view with the least distortion? I have a nikon 10.5mm 2.8 fish eye and was looking at the 16 or 20 as my other wide angle view? Also on that note anyone use the varible zoom tonkia, tamron, sigma 17-50(in that range at 2.8) lens?

CarpeyBiggs · Joined: 18 Mar 2007 Posts: 1672 Location: Fairbanks, AK

The 14-24. And I hear it's cheap, too... :roflol:

rooster32 · Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 82 Location: Sandy, UT

Take a look at the Tokina 12-24. I have one and it's a great lens for a lot less money then the new Nikon. Check out nikoncafe.com, nikonians.com or dpreview for comments on it...many like it's performance and cost savings.

I had a Tamron 17-50 that I recently sold. It was another good lens at a decent price. Have read comments that copies vary greatly in regards to quality. Again, hit the sites mentioned about and you will have lots to read.

I replaced the Tamron with the new Nikon 24-70 2.8, which I am very happy with. Hasn't been off the camera much since it arrived.

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Hill AFB, UT

How did I know you would chime in with something ridiculous and out of my price range carpy? I like you, but your crazy man... :lol8:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTCNJOsDNk&feature=related

Rooster, I guess what Im looking for is something decent in the 17ish mm to ??? zoom (or possibily fixed 16,18 or 20 if it is a better option)at 2.8 that is going to run around 500ish right now as I am on the cheap. I got the fixed 10.5 and 50 that I almost exclusive use and IM looking for another wide angle for panos and landscape for the spring/summer. The 10.5 is going to be a blast at the skate parks and bmx dirt tracks.

rooster32 · Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 82 Location: Sandy, UT

Check out the Tokina 12-24.....

CarpeyBiggs · Joined: 18 Mar 2007 Posts: 1672 Location: Fairbanks, AK

Yep. I've used the Tokina on my crop sensors for canon. It's a bargain.

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Hill AFB, UT

Thanks gentlemen. I will give that lens some serious consideration and it hits those sweetspots I like on the wide side. Ill also check out those websites you mentioned Rooster.

Dan is your crop sensors at 1.6X? I noticed that Nikons get about ~17 degrees(at 10.5) more out of certain 3rd party lens down on the wide side.

CarpeyBiggs · Joined: 18 Mar 2007 Posts: 1672 Location: Fairbanks, AK

Yeah, you will get a little wider look out of it then I did. I did use it on my 1DmkII a few times though, and I think it casts a pretty nice image circle, though it vignettes on a 1.3x. I liked it well enough.

rwpontius · Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 49

I have been debating the same question on wide angle lenses. Of course the 14-24 is in a class by itself especially for the FX sensor. The research I have done indicates that the Nikon 12-24 is overall the best of the options but maybe not enough better to justify the increased cost over the Tokina. Reports suggest that the Tokina has a better build quality. Thom Hogan went fort theSigma 10-20 for the extra 2mm at the wide end. I have pretty much decided on the Nikon 12-24 for my needs.
RP

Richard Barron · Joined: 09 Jul 2005 Posts: 836 Location: Byng, OK, USA

http://richardbarron.net/equipment/lenses/

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Hill AFB, UT

Wow thats quite the bag to pull from. Ive got some questions on some of them, we can take it to pm or email if you like or we can do it here on the board so everyone can get some knowledge. Let me know.

Richard Barron · Joined: 09 Jul 2005 Posts: 836 Location: Byng, OK, USA

waltny wrote: Wow thats quite the bag to pull from. Ive got some questions on some of them, we can take it to pm or email if you like or we can do it here on the board so everyone can get some knowledge. Let me know.

Please go ahead and ask me anything right here - I think it would be fun and helpful if everyone were in on it. -R :nod:

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Hill AFB, UT

rooster32 wrote: Take a look at the Tokina 12-24. I have one and it's a great lens for a lot less money then the new Nikon. Check out nikoncafe.com, nikonians.com or dpreview for comments on it...many like it's performance and cost savings.

I had a Tamron 17-50 that I recently sold. It was another good lens at a decent price. Have read comments that copies vary greatly in regards to quality. Again, hit the sites mentioned about and you will have lots to read.

I replaced the Tamron with the new Nikon 24-70 2.8, which I am very happy with. Hasn't been off the camera much since it arrived.

Well, I snapped up a tokina 12-24 f/4 for $375 to include all fees and shipping off nikoncafe! I cant wait to get my hands on it and do some serious shooting. I think I will probally pick up the 28/1.8 sigma(added marco is nice and at 250ish new is a steal) down the road and still debating on a 85/1.8 nikon or 90/2.8 tamron(added marco is nice).

Question for Richard or anyone else with first hand knowledge.
If the 85/1.4 is THEE portiat lens, who is second in command(and more affordable than $1000ish)?

Another question, is the gain of 2/3 of a stop on the 50/1.4 worth the extra 150 over the 50/1.8? I have the 1.8 and really love it and am completely happy with it. Will the performance of the 1.4 justify the upgrade cost?

Richard Barron · Joined: 09 Jul 2005 Posts: 836 Location: Byng, OK, USA

waltny wrote:

Question for Richard or anyone else with first hand knowledge.
If the 85/1.4 is THEE portiat lens, who is second in command(and more affordable than $1000ish)?

Another question, is the gain of 2/3 of a stop on the 50/1.4 worth the extra 150 over the 50/1.8? I have the 1.8 and really love it and am completely happy with it. Will the performance of the 1.4 justify the upgrade cost?

I don't have the 85/1.4, but I have heard it is the cheese for portraits. I have the 85/1.8, which retails for some $625 less than the 1.4, and is a terrific lens.

I have owned several non-AF 50/1.4 Nikkors, and while they were excellent lenses, I don't believe they trump the 1.8 in any important category.

In the end, of course, the creative photographer with a 50¢ garage sale camera beats a hack with a $10,000 bag, hands down.

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Hill AFB, UT

Richard Barron wrote: waltny wrote:

Question for Richard or anyone else with first hand knowledge.
If the 85/1.4 is THEE portiat lens, who is second in command(and more affordable than $1000ish)?

Another question, is the gain of 2/3 of a stop on the 50/1.4 worth the extra 150 over the 50/1.8? I have the 1.8 and really love it and am completely happy with it. Will the performance of the 1.4 justify the upgrade cost?

I don't have the 85/1.4, but I have heard it is the cheese for portraits. I have the 85/1.8, which retails for some $625 less than the 1.4, and is a terrific lens.

I have owned several non-AF 50/1.4 Nikkors, and while they were excellent lenses, I don't believe they trump the 1.8 in any important category.

In the end, of course, the creative photographer with a 50¢ garage sale camera beats a hack with a $10,000 bag, hands down.
That about sums up what I was thinking. I do hear all the hype for the 1.4 nikkors as being the only thing you should own, but it is realistically out of my range. I HAVE to be better with LESS, there is no way around it. I shoot with the "obsolete" D70s and just need some decent glass and lighting options to be able to do what I want to do. IM not getting paid for what I do, Im just a very serious amuture for now....

Are there mid range 2.8 zooms with a macro option that come highly recommend from your experience(200-500ish new or used)?