Lens choice again :)

Hi guys I've been really struggling to choose a new lens for my d5100

Currently I have the 18-55 non vr kit and these are the reasons I don't like it,

- not wide enough
- front element rotates
- possibly not long enough
- not great colour rendition

Now I'm more into landscapes but I don't feel I'm ready to jump into the ultra wide angle lenses, my Flickr account has my images- Flickr.com/donegalphotographer

Now I was looking at the sigma 17-70 c lens but I keep hearing it's soft at the Wide angle which is a problem for me the 70mm is a good length and a improvement to what I'm used to but then I found the Nikon 16-85 and I can get that cheaper if I buy used

I just could really do with some advice many thanks

Oh and my budget for the lens is £400 preferably no more but I could be swayed on that

Hi

You're probably looking at 2 different lenses to get reasonable quality. Taking the wide end:

If 18-55mm isn't wide enough for your landscapes (& I agree), then only another 1mm or 2mm isn't going to cut it. Instead I'd look at the Nikon 10-24mm DX: Nikon UK - NIKKOR Lenses - Auto Focus Lenses - DX - Zoom Lens - AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED - Digital Cameras, D-SLR, COOLPIX, NIKKOR Lenses

Non-rotating front lens, but over your budget at £639.00 new. I found a mint condition s/h with warranty for £575.00, perhaps you could find cheaper?

Gorf said:

You're probably looking at 2 different lenses to get reasonable quality.

Click to expand...

Agreed... You're asking a lot for what you want to spend. If you can get good deal on a clean copy of the Nikon 16-85mm I'd probably tell you to go for it.

....

Gorf said:

Hi

You're probably looking at 2 different lenses to get reasonable quality. Taking the wide end:

If 18-55mm isn't wide enough for your landscapes (& I agree), then only another 1mm or 2mm isn't going to cut it. Instead I'd look at the Nikon 10-24mm DX: Nikon UK - NIKKOR Lenses - Auto Focus Lenses - DX - Zoom Lens - AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED - Digital Cameras, D-SLR, COOLPIX, NIKKOR Lenses

Non-rotating front lens, but over your budget at £639.00 new. I found a mint condition s/h with warranty for £575.00, perhaps you could find cheaper?

Click to expand...

How about the tamron equivalent??? Maybe I should get a uwa lens and keep my 18--55 as a general lens

Horoscope Fish said:

Agreed... You're asking a lot for what you want to spend. If you can get good deal on a clean copy of the Nikon 16-85mm I'd probably tell you to go for it.

....

Click to expand...

I've listened to what you guys have said and I think I was silly to expect to get a high quality lens with the features I want for 400 so I'm looking at a uwa to compliment my 18-55 so the Nikon uwa is out of my range but the sigma 10-20 is in budget and I like the look of it, has anyone any opinions on this lens??

The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is a touch under £380.
It's older sibling the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is £35

UWA in budget and gets reasonably good reviews too.

Other that that, go out of budget and the Tokina 11-16mm /f2.8 gets good reviews too

As I have said in the past, the 16-85 is about the best DX Nikon walkabout lens out there.

RON said:

As I have said in the past, the 16-85 is about the best DX Nikon walkabout lens out there.

Click to expand...

From reviews I've read i agree, but I do feel I should buy myself a dedicated uwa and im now leaning towards the sigma I'm just browsing the sigma 10-20 Flickr pool and im liking what I see, I also may purchase the 16-85 for a general lens in the future

Well I had the Tokina 11-16 which was a great lens but when i reviewed my shooting habits I discovered that I almost always used it at 16mm, so i switched to the 16-85. Given the great ISO numbers on modern dslr's I no longer lust after faster glass as much as I used to.

RON said:

Well I had the Tokina 11-16 which was a great lens but when i reviewed my shooting habits I discovered that I almost always used it at 16mm, so i switched to the 16-85. Given the great ISO numbers on modern dslr's I no longer lust after faster glass as much as I used to.

Click to expand...

Well at present I'm shooting with a d5100 and a 18-55 non vr kit lens and 99% of my images are at 18mm so I do feel I need wider, my passion is landscape photography and I plan on picking up a 35mm prime for photos of my son as I have a sb910

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a superb lens, no question about that; it's my go-to ultra-wide for my D7100. The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is another excellent choice. I don't own one, but I've used one and I could be just as happy with either one.

In my opinion, you really couldn't go wrong with either of these lenses.

....

You can improve the IQ a lot by replacing your 18-55 non VR with the latest 18-55 VR-II. It is much sharper and lighter than the oldest version. For ultrawide, I suggest that you look up older AIS lenses, some of the F3.5 to F4 l4nses are best suited for landscapes.

I too shoot a lot of landscapes and was in the same boat as you. had the kit lens and wanted an ultra wide.
Went for the Sigma 10-20mm 4.5-5.6 and have been extremely happy with it. It will take getting used to though as with such a wide field of view things can easily become distorted.

I upgraded my body a few moths ago and sold the old one with the kits lens and havent had anything in that range since, bar a 35mm prime and to be honest I have been really missing that range for landscapes. I was the same as you when I was using the kit lens, "its not wide enough" etc and the UWA certainly has its place. but I have been finding more and more that the Sigma lens is too wide. Everything that isnt in front of frame looks tiny. I have a Sigma 17-50 2.8 on the way to me as we speak. I will still use the UWA a lot but experience has taught me that it isnt a one stop solution for landscape.

I`d certainly advise going for an UWA lens, be it Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Nikon or whatever but Id certainly also advise to plan for a standard zoom as well to compliment it, especially for landscapes.

Just my tuppence worth. I`m only shooting 18 months so am speaking from limited experience and others here have much more experience and will advise you accordingly.

Best of luck with whatever you end up buying.

RON said:

Well I had the Tokina 11-16 which was a great lens but when i reviewed my shooting habits I discovered that I almost always used it at 16mm, so i switched to the 16-85. Given the great ISO numbers on modern dslr's I no longer lust after faster glass as much as I used to.

Click to expand...

Interesting, most of my Tokina 11-16 pictures are taken at 11 mm, so it depends on how we see the world. This lens is very good, very sharp in the centre, slightly soft in the corners, but all UWA lenses suffer from this and Tokina is still one of the best.

I do mostly landscape/architecture photography and I decided to go for Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50 and Nikkor 55-200. The first two lenses are top notch quality and cheaper than the Nikkors. The last one costs less than a £100, is very small and light and delivers decent quality. If you want to do mostly landscape and have something for those occasional longer shots, you might consider three (!) lenses.

I know, it sort of escalates quickly. It is beyond your budget right now, but I noticed that my budget had to stretch considerable with time. You want just one good lens, but sooner or later you might start thinking about a portrait lens, about a macro lens, about a good telephoto. It never ends...