DX Wide angle zooms

R

ryanwphotography

Senior Member
Allen said:
Well, to move the conversation out a bit....my longer term strategy lens-wise (hinted in a previous post) is to use the 10-24 as a wide angle as well as 'almost normal' lens, then perhaps get a fast 35 or 50, eventually getting a longer reach telephoto to round out the system. Oh, I should mention I did (with this forums help) obtain a 105 micro....make any sense?
Click to expand...

Yes this makes sense! It's actually a good idea as well. I've been throwing the idea around in my head for a while about a 35mm. I guess there is lots of options out there eh!
Well see what happens. I can't really afford much right now. I've been laid off for about 3 weeks. But start new job on the 28th! Yay!
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Allen said:
Actually, I am a bit surprised at the general preference for the Tokina 11-16; That being said, it poses one additional question: given the greater reach of the Nikkor 10-24 would that lens perhaps replace to some extent an additional midrange or perhaps a super zoom? .... especially since its performance is at least on par with the Tokina with much less range....
Click to expand...

That is why I picked the Nikon over the Tokina at the time. But now that I am a prime snob, I would use a different lens after the UW effect was not relavent.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
stmv said:
some people love wideangle,, and others shy away.. you can really move in on a subject, and for non landscapes, sometimes it becomes a bit too much camera in face,, hence the use as mostly a landscape lens, let me see if I can dig out a shot using a wideangle...


View attachment 25192

Here it was handy,,, at 15mm because limited space to work in, but when I was looking thru my portfolio, really a low % for me is at this range,


Ironicallly, Lately, instead of using my wide angle,

I just photo merge a 3 row double high shot, I just findi it easier,,, than carrying the wide angle. These type of shots, I have a lot off.

View attachment 25193

wide angle effect, but shot at 35 mm and photo mergred

.
Click to expand...

I like the dramatic perspective of an UW, you can't merge this:


DSC_0031_2867_2_2868_3_2869_tonemapped.JPG
 
Last edited:
R

ryanwphotography

Senior Member
Anyone here have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4? What do you think of it? I found one used for $425. It was bought in September. Do you think I should bother because I already have the Nikkor 18-105?
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
ryanwphotography said:
Anyone here have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4? What do you think of it? I found one used for $425. It was bought in September. Do you think I should bother because I already have the Nikkor 18-105?
Click to expand...

I think the lens you have is better than the sigma. For one thing it covers a bit more range and I'm not sure the Sigma has VR. So the little more light you'd get with it might not be that important. And that range is not considered as a really wide angle on DX. You could probably find a 10-20 for the same price that would give you a lot more opportunity than the 17-70.

Again, just my humble opinion.
 
Top