Crop body, funds running low... and desperately need a wide-angle

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Shacklebolt, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #1
    I shoot on a pretty nice Nikon crop body, have a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4... and the wide angle I'm stuck with is a 6 year-old 18-135 3.5-5.6

    I mean, this is a little ridiculous -- namely how lazy I've been about finding a good "middle ground" between a $2,000 Nikkor and a basically-worthless kit lens. I consider myself to be, at the very least, a decent semi-pro (or at least, I get paid like I am, for some reason), and I've just taken to renting a wide angle (and/or body) when I need it. But that's just not realistic all the time. And 18 mm on a crop body just ain't gonna cut it in this full frame world.

    Yes, yes, I'll save up, and I'll also do some independent research (Google is my friend). But I'd also really like some input as to a good, cheap, wide-angle lens for Nikon cameras. Can be prime, can be off-brand, whatever you think is good. Just not a fisheye. And, preferably, $500 or less.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    ijohn.8.80

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
    #2
    I'll suggest going for the Tokina 11-16mm if you can get one for your price. I can't comment on Nikon specific lenses, I'm a Canon user.
     
  3. MCH-1138, Mar 21, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2013

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #3
    I have heard good things about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. If your camera body has a built-in AF motor, you can go with the original version. If you don't have a built-in AF motor, you'll need the DX-II.

    Both versions are over $500 new, but you may be able to find them used for less.

    (Edit: ijohn.8.80 beat me to it.)
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #4
    Another vote for the Tokina. Its flares are kind of gnarly so depending on your style you might want to get the version two, which has less gnarly flares.

    It's sharp with very little distortion, but there's some CA in the corners, too. The 10-24m Nikon also looks nice, but is more expensive.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #5
    Another option is the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. It is a little less expensive than the 11-16mm ($400-450 new (USD), depending on whether you get the I or II).

    Maybe not quite as well-regarded as the 11-16mm, but I have read good things about it, as well.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #6
    Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I haven't had any trouble with flare, but I never shoot against the light (sun, and other strong lights). I use this lens for photographing the Auroras, but these never cause lens flare with any lens.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
  8. macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    上海 (Shanghai)
    #8
    You could perhaps rent a lens or borrow one from a friend? I often lend my lenses to friends).
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #9
    Another vote for Tokina. I used a 12-24 f4 with my Canon 40D and 7D, and the images it produced were stunning.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    I really enjoyed using Sigma's 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for a project on my D7000. I've switched up to a D800 finally, so I'm getting a little bang for my buck on my Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8, but I'd still rent the Sigma if I had a similar project.
     
  11. macrumors G3

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the lens, UK
    #11
    I use a 14-24mm Nikon which is awesome on both my crop body and D750. It will be a bit higher than your looking to spend though, even second hand.
    I know you said no to a fish eye, but with the right PP, you can still get a nice sharp image with the Nikon 10.5mm.
    I've never used a third party lens, but check the DXO ratings, and maybe rent before committing.
     
  12. macrumors demi-god

    Cheese&Apple

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
    I'm hoping that after two years Shacklebolt has this figured-out. :D
     
  13. macrumors G3

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the lens, UK
    #13
    LOL didn't even notice. If he's been saving all this time, he should be able to take his pick!
     

Share This Page