Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Wide Angle FX Lens

1

103734

Guest
Original poster
Well right now in my set up I have a 10-24mm Tamron, the nifty fifty, and a 80-200mm 2.8 Nikon. The Tamron is the only lens I have thats not FX format, its really not the best lens, towards the edges of the lens it has like a prism effect, where the image starts to break up and you can see the red, green, and blue parts of the image. Well you can see here.
85861291.jpg


Anyways I want to replace it with a FX format lens, I would like one as wide as possible, but I want to stay under $1000, and with that budget I don't think I will get one with the range of the Tamron I have now. Even a prime lens would be ok.

What would you guys suggest?
 
That prism effect is called chromatic aberration.

I have the Nikon 14-24, and it's an incredible lens, but I find myself using it mostly between 20 and 24. It's also a fairly large lens, so where I want to travel light, a 20mm and/or 24mm prime will probably do what I need. I shoot with a D700.

20mm isn't very wide on your D90. Why do you want an FX wide angle lens, instead of a DX lens?
 
You may want to consider a 14mm prime. I've seen one or two Nikon 14mm ƒ/2.8 primes go for about $1000 on Fred Miranda. This one is going for $1100 but you could probably haggle them down to $1000. It may be on the higher end of your budget but the reviews are extremely positive for the lens. Another option would be the Sigma 12-24mm or the Sigma 14mm.
 
iBookG4user said:
You may want to consider a 14mm prime. I've seen one or two Nikon 14mm ƒ/2.8 primes go for about $1000 on Fred Miranda. This one is going for $1100 but you could probably haggle them down to $1000. It may be on the higher end of your budget but the reviews are extremely positive for the lens. Another option would be the Sigma 12-24mm or the Sigma 14mm.
Click to expand...

I guess Canon shooters must like it more than Nikon shooters. The majority of the reviews I've read of the lens have been ambivalent at best (Rorslett, Hogan, SLRGear, Photozone). The retail price of a new 14mm is in the same league as that of the 14-24 - $1700+.
 
Cliff3 said:
I guess Canon shooters must like it more than Nikon shooters. The majority of the reviews I've read of the lens have been ambivalent at best (Rorslett, Hogan, SLRGear, Photozone). The retail price of a new 14mm is in the same league as that of the 14-24 - $1700+.
Click to expand...

I usually check FM for reviews of the lenses by people who actually have to buy the lens. I'm not much of a pixel peeper I have to say, but those reviews on FM here seem very positive if I am not mistaken. And the lens can be had used for about $1000 as I linked to above.
 
iBookG4user said:
I usually check FM for reviews of the lenses by people who actually have to buy the lens. I'm not much of a pixel peeper I have to say, but those reviews on FM here seem very positive if I am not mistaken. And the lens can be had used for about $1000 as I linked to above.
Click to expand...

I don't put much weight on consumer provided product reviews. Most people aren't too objective in their assessment of a product they have committed their own resources to purchasing. The reviews at the link you provided are no exception to that. If you read the user reviews at B&H or Amazon for this lens, they are all uniformly positive too (and one or two of them were seemingly clueless).

Your advertiser's posted price is $1100 not $1000, and I don't see any effort being made to try and talk him down from that price. Keh.com has a couple of these lenses listed on their site at $1035 and $889, and they offer a warranty and have a return policy. I wouldn't spend $900 of my money on this lens, and that was an option I considered prior to taking the course I did.
 
Cliff3 said:
That prism effect is called chromatic aberration.

I have the Nikon 14-24, and it's an incredible lens, but I find myself using it mostly between 20 and 24. It's also a fairly large lens, so where I want to travel light, a 20mm and/or 24mm prime will probably do what I need. I shoot with a D700.

20mm isn't very wide on your D90. Why do you want an FX wide angle lens, instead of a DX lens?
Click to expand...

I plan on moving over to the FX format in the next 1 to 2 years.
 
SUPERSTEVE9219 said:
I plan on moving over to the FX format in the next 1 to 2 years.
Click to expand...

That's a long way out. I'd be inclined to buy a good DX lens like the Tokina 11-16 that will address your current needs, then take stock of what's available in the marketplace again once you're ready to make the switch. I suspect (not to mention hope) we'll see updates of Nikon's FX primes along with some more choices in consumer/prosumer priced zooms.

Edit: I should ask what lenses you have now. I seem to recall your buying an 80-200 f2.8 AF-D recently. What else?
 
Right now I have a tamron 10-24, Nikon 50mm 1.8, and the 80-200mm.

I have a hole between the Tamron and 50mm, sometimes the 50mm is to close, and the Tamron isn't good for much besides landscapes, so if I need to shoot something thats not a landscape and the 50mm is to close I am kinda screwed.
 
SUPERSTEVE9219 said:
Right now I have a tamron 10-24, Nikon 50mm 1.8, and the 80-200mm.

I have a hole between the Tamron and 50mm, sometimes the 50mm is to close, and the Tamron isn't good for much besides landscapes, so if I need to shoot something thats not a landscape and the 50mm is to close I am kinda screwed.
Click to expand...

D'oh! Sorry, normally I can read but this has been a really bad weekend for me.

Sounds like you need something covering the focal length gap between the Tamron and the 80-200. What about a Nikkor 16-85 VR or 17-55?
 
Well I feel the 50mm and 80-200mm cover everything above 50mm for me, I have never had any problems with the gap between the 50 and 80-200, I have had problems with the gap between the Tamron and 50mm, I was looking at the 17-55mm f/2.8G but its DX... The 35 f/2 seems to be a alright in between and for the price I don't think I can beat it, but I would like some type of zoom.
 
SUPERSTEVE9219 said:
Well I feel the 50mm and 80-200mm cover everything above 50mm for me, I have never had any problems with the gap between the 50 and 80-200, I have had problems with the gap between the Tamron and 50mm, I was looking at the 17-55mm f/2.8G but its DX... The 35 f/2 seems to be a alright in between and for the price I don't think I can beat it, but I would like some type of zoom.
Click to expand...

Really, don't worry about buying DX glass...

If and when you do move to a FX body, you can always sell your DX glass for pretty much what you paid for it, assuming you take good care of your gear.
 
An option would be the Nikkor 18-35 which can be found new for $600. I had a copy of the lens at one time, sold it, and don't miss it. It had gobs of barrel distortion at the wide end. Some lenses have a certain magic to them, but not that one.

You could probably find a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF for under $1000, but as I noted in a previous post, 20mm isn't wide on a DX body. This lens was the predecessor to the 17-35 f2.8 AF-S, but that lens is usually priced well over $1000 used (unless maybe it has been beat to hell), and is $1700-$1800 new.

The 17-55 DX would be a good choice. I used one for 3+ years until I sold it and replaced it with the 14-24 and 24-70. It is capable of producing stunning images. It has a nice bokeh, color saturation is excellent, focus is fast and silent. The only thing I didn't like about it was I felt 55mm was a bit short, and the gap between 55 and 80 was huge for me. Excellent used copies can easily be found in the neighborhood of $900. Use it for a couple of years and sell it when you're ready to move on to a different sensor format.
 
Full-frame UW lenses are expensive. Nikon's 14-24 is probably the sharpest UW lens out there, even better than the 14 mm prime. However, it's expensive and heavy.

I'd sell the Tamron and either get Tokina's 11-16 or the 12-24 mm lens (depending on the focal lengths you use the most). The 11-16 is, according to photozone, it's better than Canon's much acclaimed 10-22 mm zoom. I would caution against putting too much weight on a single review, but it's definitely a good lens.
 
Well Nikon announced a new 10-24 today, its a DX but like you guys said I could just sell it when I do move over.

Thanks everyone😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back