Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AntrimHills" data-source="post: 68550" data-attributes="member: 9936">When I had my Minolta gear nearly 20 years ago (a D7000i body) I had a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, and a 70-210mm f3.5-4.5.&nbsp; It seems to have changed a lot, because back then a 24mm was considered super wide angle, with the 20mm f2.8 being classed as ultra-wide (I didn't like it since it was starting to bend the horizon)&nbsp; I do remember using one (a 20mm) to take a picture of the mast of an old ship from a distance of around about 100 feet, and managed to get the whole mast in, but the rest of the picture was distorted.&nbsp; I suppose the DX equivalent of a 24mm 35mm lens would be a 16mm.With the Nikkor 16mm f2.8 FX lens at the price it is, I'd go for a second hand one.&nbsp; But I must agree I'd try for a used Nikkor before buying a non-NikkorOr you could consider buying a 16-85mm, but I suppose that depends on your other lenses...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AntrimHills, post: 68550, member: 9936"] When I had my Minolta gear nearly 20 years ago (a D7000i body) I had a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, and a 70-210mm f3.5-4.5. It seems to have changed a lot, because back then a 24mm was considered super wide angle, with the 20mm f2.8 being classed as ultra-wide (I didn't like it since it was starting to bend the horizon) I do remember using one (a 20mm) to take a picture of the mast of an old ship from a distance of around about 100 feet, and managed to get the whole mast in, but the rest of the picture was distorted. I suppose the DX equivalent of a 24mm 35mm lens would be a 16mm. With the Nikkor 16mm f2.8 FX lens at the price it is, I'd go for a second hand one. But I must agree I'd try for a used Nikkor before buying a non-Nikkor Or you could consider buying a 16-85mm, but I suppose that depends on your other lenses... [/QUOTE]

Verification