DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Need Suggestions for A Wide-Angle Lens for D70
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/11/2005 08:21:02 AM · #1
I am planning to buy a wide-angle lens for my Nikon D70. Suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

I wish I will be forced to take landscape shots if I have an appropriate lens for it. Also would like to take portraits with a lot of context using the wide-angle lens.

Thanks.

Manny
05/11/2005 08:31:16 AM · #2
The 18-70mm lens is awesome. Good, wide, and pretty good speed. I have no complaints. :)

That covers a good range for wide, and for portraits as well.

Clara
05/11/2005 08:34:38 AM · #3
I was thinking of that too. Thanks for the suggestion.

Manny
05/11/2005 08:48:42 AM · #4
What's your budget? The Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 has received good reviews, and it will give you a significantly wider view than the 18-70, but it's around $1000.
05/11/2005 08:53:36 AM · #5
Depends on how wide you want to go. I've done a lot of landscape work with the 18-70 and it never lets me down.

If you want a bit better build quality for weather and backpack durability, and a touch wider view, then the 17-35 f/2.8 would be a killer lens. I'd love it, but can't justify it at this point.

The other option is the 12-24 f/4 dx. I'm not sure if the build quality is the same as the f/2 ED series, but optically it is a fantsastic lens with great reviews everywhere. It's also much lighter than the 17-35, and with landscape you really don't need much faster glass than an f/4. This seems like the ultimate pick for landscape work unless you need the bullet-proof construction of the f/2 ED type lenses.

Are you sure you want to venture beyond portrait work? Every issue of National Geographic I get comes with anticipation of a Librodo portriat cover shot :) Can't wait to see what you do with landscapes!
05/11/2005 08:53:41 AM · #6
I love my 12-24 Sigma. I've read good things about the Tokina 12-24 as well.



More examples can be found at: My Pbase Probably find most under the landscape directory.

-danny
05/11/2005 09:07:19 AM · #7
Originally posted by cghubbell:

Depends on how wide you want to go. I've done a lot of landscape work with the 18-70 and it never lets me down.

If you want a bit better build quality for weather and backpack durability, and a touch wider view, then the 17-35 f/2.8 would be a killer lens. I'd love it, but can't justify it at this point.

The other option is the 12-24 f/4 dx. I'm not sure if the build quality is the same as the f/2 ED series, but optically it is a fantsastic lens with great reviews everywhere. It's also much lighter than the 17-35, and with landscape you really don't need much faster glass than an f/4. This seems like the ultimate pick for landscape work unless you need the bullet-proof construction of the f/2 ED type lenses.

Are you sure you want to venture beyond portrait work? Every issue of National Geographic I get comes with anticipation of a Librodo portriat cover shot :) Can't wait to see what you do with landscapes!


Can't wait to see what can I do with landscape too...NG will forever be a dream. Afraid to let go of things I have now.

Thanks for the info. I am down to two now...18-70 or 12-24. Budget will then be an issue.

manny
05/11/2005 09:08:54 AM · #8
Originally posted by crabappl3:

I love my 12-24 Sigma. I've read good things about the Tokina 12-24 as well.



More examples can be found at: My Pbase Probably find most under the landscape directory.

-danny


EXCELLENT portfolio Danny. Realy really impressive. Thaks for the input.

Manny

05/11/2005 09:13:45 AM · #9
Originally posted by librodo:

Can't wait to see what can I do with landscape too...NG will forever be a dream. Afraid to let go of things I have now.

Thanks for the info. I am down to two now...18-70 or 12-24. Budget will then be an issue.

manny


Here's a good review of the 12-24. If landscape is your goal, I think this is where you want to be. Budget be damned - anything in the name of self expression! ;)

//www.bythom.com/1224lens.htm
05/11/2005 09:23:41 AM · #10
Just got my Sigma 12-24mm this lunchtime... looking good so far. The view through my film camera is awesome. Can't wait to find some interesting subjects!
05/11/2005 09:30:21 AM · #11
I have the Nikkor AF-S 17mm-28mm F2.8D and it is a terrific lens. Great linearity, sharpness and speed. I recommend it for a zoom. I also use the 28mm f1.4D which is very fast.

My wish is for something a bit wider. Nikon offers a 14mm F2.8D and I am hopeful to find a good used model to get the extra width I miss snce moving to a digital SLR.
05/11/2005 09:33:13 AM · #12
I'm waiting for the Sigma 10-20, but am starting to consider the Tokina 12-24.

If you are going also use film then it seems that the Sigma 12-24 or the Nikon 12-24 are the options available (thanks Bob for pointing this out)
05/11/2005 09:35:45 AM · #13
Nikon 12-24 is DX, won't work with full frame or film. This is one of the reasons I went with the Sigma, as the Tokina had not come out yet.

-danny

Originally posted by colda:

I'm waiting for the Sigma 10-20, but am starting to consider the Tokina 12-24.

If you are going also use film then it seems that the Sigma 12-24 or the Nikon 12-24 are the options available (thanks Bob for pointing this out)
05/11/2005 09:37:37 AM · #14
Isn't the Tokina digital only as well?
05/11/2005 09:37:51 AM · #15
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Just got my Sigma 12-24mm this lunchtime... looking good so far. The view through my film camera is awesome. Can't wait to find some interesting subjects!


Sigma lens for Nikon? Does it work? (Sorry for my naivette.

BTW, is the Sigma 12-24 lens cheaper than the Nikon 12-24? I wa sin Singapore 2 weeks ago. I should have bought it there.

Manny
05/11/2005 09:38:01 AM · #16
Apologies, the Sigma is the only one then, the Tokina is also designed for APS-C sized sensors.

Originally posted by crabappl3:

Nikon 12-24 is DX, won't work with full frame or film. This is one of the reasons I went with the Sigma, as the Tokina had not come out yet.

-danny

Originally posted by colda:

I'm waiting for the Sigma 10-20, but am starting to consider the Tokina 12-24.

If you are going also use film then it seems that the Sigma 12-24 or the Nikon 12-24 are the options available (thanks Bob for pointing this out)

05/11/2005 09:41:15 AM · #17
This review helped me to decide to spend my cash on the Sigma:
//194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html
All the other reviews I found on the net were absolutely glowing.
I was expecting a big chunky heavy lens, but it's actually not bad... especially compared to my Tokina 24-200mm which is a brick.
05/11/2005 09:52:16 AM · #18
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

This review helped me to decide to spend my cash on the Sigma:
//194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html
All the other reviews I found on the net were absolutely glowing.
I was expecting a big chunky heavy lens, but it's actually not bad... especially compared to my Tokina 24-200mm which is a brick.


Bob (and Danny), I just come across this link thought that it might be worth looking at for you and other Sigma 12-24 owners :)
05/11/2005 09:57:33 AM · #19
Originally posted by crabappl3:

Nikon 12-24 is DX, won't work with full frame or film. This is one of the reasons I went with the Sigma, as the Tokina had not come out yet.

-danny


Certainly a consideration if you shoot both but given Nikon's position, you probably won't see a full frame Nikon digital camera any time soon. With the way d2x images are reputed to handle enlargements, I'm beginning to feel quite comfortable with Nikon's decision.

For those who are not planning to shoot film, I think the 12-24 dx seems to be a fantastic lens for the focal lengths it provides. I love the idea of the 17-35 f/2, but it seems to be a lot of bulk and expense over the 18-70 for only modest gain. That thought just keeps bringing me back to the 12-24 as a wide-angle choice. Tough call though.
05/11/2005 10:05:35 AM · #20
Originally posted by colda:

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

This review helped me to decide to spend my cash on the Sigma:
//194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html
All the other reviews I found on the net were absolutely glowing.
I was expecting a big chunky heavy lens, but it's actually not bad... especially compared to my Tokina 24-200mm which is a brick.


Bob (and Danny), I just come across this link thought that it might be worth looking at for you and other Sigma 12-24 owners :)


Interesting link, especially as I own a stack of Cokin P series filters, including the polariser. I just don't have the 'Blue Peter' mentality though (a UK kids program that encourages viewers to make loads of stuff from cardboard boxes and washing up bottles).
The caveat at the end states that the flare is particularly bad when using filters 90 degrees to the sun, which begs the question what is the point of using a polariser then?
05/11/2005 10:07:48 AM · #21
Originally posted by cghubbell:

Originally posted by crabappl3:

Nikon 12-24 is DX, won't work with full frame or film. This is one of the reasons I went with the Sigma, as the Tokina had not come out yet.

-danny


Certainly a consideration if you shoot both but given Nikon's position, you probably won't see a full frame Nikon digital camera any time soon. With the way d2x images are reputed to handle enlargements, I'm beginning to feel quite comfortable with Nikon's decision.

For those who are not planning to shoot film, I think the 12-24 dx seems to be a fantastic lens for the focal lengths it provides. I love the idea of the 17-35 f/2, but it seems to be a lot of bulk and expense over the 18-70 for only modest gain. That thought just keeps bringing me back to the 12-24 as a wide-angle choice. Tough call though.


I love the fact that 12-18mm is there on my film camera if I really need it. I won't use it very often, but I can relax knowing that certain tricky interiors can be captured, and also really wide angle crowd shots that seem to be very popular every time I see the coverage of a music festival.
05/11/2005 10:14:16 AM · #22
Originally posted by cghubbell:

Originally posted by crabappl3:

Nikon 12-24 is DX, won't work with full frame or film. This is one of the reasons I went with the Sigma, as the Tokina had not come out yet.

-danny


Certainly a consideration if you shoot both but given Nikon's position, you probably won't see a full frame Nikon digital camera any time soon. With the way d2x images are reputed to handle enlargements, I'm beginning to feel quite comfortable with Nikon's decision.

For those who are not planning to shoot film, I think the 12-24 dx seems to be a fantastic lens for the focal lengths it provides. I love the idea of the 17-35 f/2, but it seems to be a lot of bulk and expense over the 18-70 for only modest gain. That thought just keeps bringing me back to the 12-24 as a wide-angle choice. Tough call though.


I can't imagine using film (at least not on a regular basis) so I agree on the dx solutions. I really like my 18-70 but do feel the need to go wider and although I'm sure that the Nikon 12-24 is a great lens I'm pretty sure that I will go for the Sigma 10-20 especially as it looks to be over £500 cheaper:

Nikon - Jessops price = £900
Sigma - Sigma RRP = £370
05/11/2005 10:25:04 AM · #23
I have both the Nikon 12-24 f4 and the 17-35 2.8, both very nice lens.

Message edited by author 2009-04-06 23:24:05.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 06:02:02 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 06:02:02 AM EDT.