Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
wide angle FX lens.
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Jan 8, 2016 13:22:44   #
Busch Loc: San Diego
 
Had the Nikon 14-24 2.8. Used it so seldom that I traded it for the 28-300 & some money. Now i find I should have at least a decent wide angle lens. Can any one recommend a good fairly inexpensive FX wide angle? Third party OK. (It's for a D800.)


Thanks,

Busch

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 13:38:00   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
In Photography nothing is inexpensive anymore. Do not know your budgest but how about a Tamron 15-30?
Busch wrote:
Had the Nikon 14-24 2.8. Used it so seldom that I traded it for the 28-300 & some money. Now i find I should have at least a decent wide angle lens. Can any one recommend a good fairly inexpensive FX wide angle? Third party OK. (It's for a D800.)


Thanks,

Busch

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 13:49:06   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA
 
deleted

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2016 14:08:48   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Busch wrote:
Had the Nikon 14-24 2.8. Used it so seldom that I traded it for the 28-300 & some money. Now i find I should have at least a decent wide angle lens. Can any one recommend a good fairly inexpensive FX wide angle? Third party OK. (It's for a D800.)


Thanks,

Busch


Samyang/Rokinon/Bower etc, (all the same lens, Samyang makes it under about 6 names for different distributors) has a very nice 14 mm manual lens that comes in Nikon mount. I have one for my Canons to use indoors at museums etc. It is about $300 give or take currently.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 14:17:36   #
forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA
 
Useful data point. Thanks.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 14:24:52   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
I better check the news. Is the rest of the country blacked out and under snow drifts? All but the OP are from California on this thread.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 14:41:39   #
Busch Loc: San Diego
 
Busch wrote:
Had the Nikon 14-24 2.8. Used it so seldom that I traded it for the 28-300 & some money. Now i find I should have at least a decent wide angle lens. Can any one recommend a good fairly inexpensive FX wide angle? Third party OK. (It's for a D800.)

Has any one had experience with Tokina 16-28?
Thanks,

Busch

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2016 16:33:56   #
DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia
 
PixelStan77 wrote:
In Photography nothing is inexpensive anymore. Do not know your budgest but how about a Tamron 15-30?


I second that. I use a Tamron 15-30mm on my D750. It's not real cheap, but it is a superb lens. Most reviewers rate it as good, (some even rate it better than) as the equivalent lenses from the 'big two', but with a considerable price advantage. Earl.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 17:00:49   #
jcboy3
 
There is the Nikon 16-35/4 VR or the Nikon 17-35/2.8. I have the latter. Both will take screw in filters, so I can use regular filters (good for CPL and ND) or screw in a mount for rectangular filters (good for GND).

Plenty wide for me; when I want wider I usually do a panorama.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 18:13:25   #
Busch Loc: San Diego
 
PixelStan77 wrote:
In Photography nothing is inexpensive anymore. Do not know your budgest but how about a Tamron 15-30?


Was hoping less than $700.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 18:22:12   #
glgracephoto Loc: Arlington, WA
 
Busch wrote:
Had the Nikon 14-24 2.8. Used it so seldom that I traded it for the 28-300 & some money. Now i find I should have at least a decent wide angle lens. Can any one recommend a good fairly inexpensive FX wide angle? Third party OK. (It's for a D800.)


Thanks,

Busch


I got the Nikon 18-35 F/3.5-4.5, was under $700 for a refurbished direct from Nikon, and scores nicely on DxoMark. It is a FF lens but consumer grade, and does accept normal 77mm filters

Cheaper and surprisingly good optics, but heavy on the distortion, are the Samyang or Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 models, but the will not take a normal screw on filter

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2016 18:33:46   #
moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment
 
Busch wrote:
Was hoping less than $700.


If 20mm is wide enough, check out the latest 20mm f/1.8. Superbly sharp, light weight, and about your price point.

If you want wider and more versatile and are willing to give up some speed, the 16-35 f/4 someone else suggested is very well regarded.Also the 18-35.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 21:05:27   #
Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida
 
After I bought a 16-35 f4, I don't use the 14-24 2.8 too much.

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 21:30:42   #
wolfman
 
The D800 & 16-35 f/4 is an awesome combination.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360154-1.html

Reply
Jan 8, 2016 22:30:11   #
FairwayPhotos Loc: Massachusetts, USA
 
I have the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 fx and love it. It should be within your price range....got mine for about $400 on ebay

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.