Good Wide Angle For Occasional Shots

Hi Chaps.

I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I hardly ever need a wide angle lens for any of the photography I do. It just has never come up that often if at all.
However, over the last few weeks I have been asked to take some group shots of Football teams, a Trophy presentation night, and even a school reunion party.
I'm not a pro or even a semi pro, and all my stuff is basically portrait and things which a wide angle is never needed.

I just wondered if anyone has any advice on a getting a decent wide angle lens - even third party - that wont break the bank for occasional stuff like this?


DaveW

I use a Sigma 10-20. You can sometimes find a great deal on a used one but even new it is less than US$500. I've been very happy with mine.

Most of the Nikon standard zoom lenses perform really well at the wider end of the scale.
The 18-70 3.5-4.5 springs to mind here. great at 18mm with a very flat feild curvature.
If you want wider, then the 16-85 is good when stopped down a little to 5.6 etc.
If you want a propper wide angle, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is prob about the best.
Superb IQ throughout. It has a weakness in CAs though. Easily correctable in photoshop though. In camera too if your shooting JPG.

I'd second the Tokina, it's awesome. One thing to consider, it has such a small zoom range you are always very wide, but if that's what you need it is the way to go.

The 18-70, that made me smile as I gave mine to my daughter a while ago with my old D70 but I think I'm getting it back as she's not that interested at the moment. I did take shots and compare it with the 18-200 but found the latter a bit better. That said the 18-200 is more expensive as well.

The Tokina is a great lens if you expect to shoot in low light. If you are going to do group shots in good or outdoor light, you'll probably be using an aperture between f/8 - f/16 so why not save yourself some cash?

I read all the arguments about why bother with a 2.8 ultrawide for landscape etc before buying the Tokina. Whilst that statement is true, a lot of times I use it is indoors where 2.8 is really useful. In the real world you can't have a lens that's too fast, as long as it can stop down. That said it was the most expensive after the Nikon options which I did consider but ruled out (and not on cost).

Eduard said:

The Tokina is a great lens if you expect to shoot in low light. If you are going to do group shots in good or outdoor light, you'll probably be using an aperture between f/8 - f/16 so why not save yourself some cash?

Click to expand...

Geoffc said:

I read all the arguments about why bother with a 2.8 ultrawide for landscape etc before buying the Tokina. Whilst that statement is true, a lot of times I use it is indoors where 2.8 is really useful. In the real world you can't have a lens that's too fast, as long as it can stop down. That said it was the most expensive after the Nikon options which I did consider but ruled out (and not on cost).

Click to expand...

I agree with buying the fastest glass that you can afford. I made the comment because the DaveW indicated he was looking for something that wouldn't "break the bank".

As much as the Tokina might be the better lens, go into a photo store and have a look. It's much bigger and heavier than the Sigma. My sigma has satisfied me from day one.

Eduard and Marcel I absolutely agree with your points and if the budget drives it I'm sure the Sigma is a great option. In fact a friend has one which he really likes. You do have the advantage of being able to hammer nails in with the Tokina

Geoffc said:

I'd second the Tokina, it's awesome. One thing to consider, it has such a small zoom range you are always very wide, but if that's what you need it is the way to go.

The 18-70, that made me smile as I gave mine to my daughter a while ago with my old D70 but I think I'm getting it back as she's not that interested at the moment. I did take shots and compare it with the 18-200 but found the latter a bit better. That said the 18-200 is more expensive as well.

Click to expand...

Thats realy odd if you found the 18-200 outperfomed the 18-70. If that happned I would say the 18-70 is faulty and needs calibrating.
The 18-70 is a superb performer and matches the 17-55 in same focal lengh and aprature. in fact the 18mm end outperforms the 17-55 as the
17-55 suffers from exsessive feild curvature. The little 18-70 should be noticably better than the 18-200.
Another thing the 18-70 has going for it... besides the 17-55... its the only lens here that has any form of weather protection.
it probably has the fastest focus in this company by far too. The 18-70 is still my lens of choice between the newer 18-105 and 135.
Its also the only one of these to offer a metal mount. All of these lenses outperform the 18-200 with ease at there given focal lenghs.

I'm just wondering if it was the 28-70 that I tested rather than the 18-70. You may well be right westmill. When I got it as part of the D70 it was rated very highly. I think my daghter will be returning it a bit sooner!! As you know from my other posts, I do like my 18-200 when I'm being lazy.

Yes its sooooo easy to love a superzoom. I actualy know if I bought one I would never take it off lol.
Its like a lens variant of an automatic car. Ive a load of fast primes, and I never use them. Zooms are simply too dam handy.
Ive already decided to do a replacement of everything next year. Lens wise, Im buying just two. The 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8 to replace
my well used 80-200 2.8. I may also buy a fisheye, but im still considdering that one. These two lenses cover all the range I need.
The quality is not far off primes and often better than some. The standard Nikon lenses born over the last few years are just amazing where
image quality is concerened though. The truth is, by buying the 17-55 all I gain is a bit of speed, faster focus and built to last.
The actual image quality is matched if not bettered by the cheaper consumer lenses now. I will also buy two of the nikon D300 replacements.
I will simply keep a lens on each camera. mmmmm thats almost a superzoom

I must admit I would like something to fill the gap between the 11-16 Tokina and the 70-200, although maybe I have it in the form of the 18-70. I would actually like something a bit faster. I recently bought the 70-200 VRII. I had tried the 80-200 and the 70-200 VR1 previously but wasn't over impressed with the results handheld, although I'm prepared to accept that is just me. The new VRII is awesome. I tried it with the Nikon 2X TC the other day and it did a passable grab shot in the shop at 1/20 sec. I may buy that TC at some point. My wife bought the fisheye and it's actually quite useful and pretty sharp for what it is. We run the pictures through DXO software they come out pretty good.

Geoffc said:

I must admit I would like something to fill the gap between the 11-16 Tokina and the 70-200, although maybe I have it in the form of the 18-70. I would actually like something a bit faster. I recently bought the 70-200 VRII. I had tried the 80-200 and the 70-200 VR1 previously but wasn't over impressed with the results handheld, although I'm prepared to accept that is just me. The new VRII is awesome. I tried it with the Nikon 2X TC the other day and it did a passable grab shot in the shop at 1/20 sec. I may buy that TC at some point. My wife bought the fisheye and it's actually quite useful and pretty sharp for what it is. We run the pictures through DXO software they come out pretty good.

Click to expand...

Does it really have to be a zoom? You can get the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8 for less money than the 16-85… Just a thought.

In theory you are probably right Marcel, however you're not considering how lazy I am.

Geoffc said:

In theory you are probably right Marcel, however you're not considering how lazy I am.

Click to expand...

Zooming with your feet is just the right tool to work on that then…

the tamron 17-50 2.8 would be a good option for that. I have one, and its dificult to fault to be honnest.
Image quality is excellent and its F2.8 its well built and looks the part. I find the biggest draw back is its very noisy when focussing.
I shot a wedding using it the other day, and I was very aware lol. What is funny though, later at the reception I swapped cameras and
picked up the d300 which had the 18-70 attached. This is virtualy silent. I kid you not.... because i had been using the noisey tamron all day,
I seriously thought there was sumit wrong with my camera or lens. Like it wasnt focussing. Of course it was fine. I actualy checked the settings
I was so convinced lol. the other draw back with the 17-50 tamron is the same as the nikon 17-55... it suffers excessive feild curvature at 17mm.
Stopping down to F8 cures it, as it does on 17-55. Everywhere else, you can shoot happily even wide open.

The Tamron (or Sigma) 17-50 2.8 has been on my wish list for a while now.
I'm saving my pennies for that one...and an sb-700

Marcel said:

Zooming with your feet is just the right tool to work on that then…

Click to expand...

I read an article about an old school teach lecturing some students. They looked at his prime lens mounted on his camera and asked what happens when he wanted to zoom in. "walk forward" he says. I guess you know how he zooms out. A few years ago I tried this apporach with a 90mm prime. I also left everything on auto after reading something that suggested the computer was cleverer than me. I got some great shots that day because I had to think about composition and nothing else.

westmill said:

the tamron 17-50 2.8 would be a good option for that. I have one, and its dificult to fault to be honnest.
Image quality is excellent and its F2.8 its well built and looks the part. I find the biggest draw back is its very noisy when focussing.
I shot a wedding using it the other day, and I was very aware lol. What is funny though, later at the reception I swapped cameras and
picked up the d300 which had the 18-70 attached. This is virtualy silent. I kid you not.... because i had been using the noisey tamron all day,
I seriously thought there was sumit wrong with my camera or lens. Like it wasnt focussing. Of course it was fine. I actualy checked the settings
I was so convinced lol. the other draw back with the 17-50 tamron is the same as the nikon 17-55... it suffers excessive feild curvature at 17mm.
Stopping down to F8 cures it, as it does on 17-55. Everywhere else, you can shoot happily even wide open.

Click to expand...

Westmill you've now caused me a problem :tennis: I was thinking my next purchase would be the Nikon 2X or 1.4X TC for the 70-200 which is around £400, but this is about £300 and would get much more use. Are your comments based on the VC version or the other one. I assume VC = VR in Tamron. I'm not sure if I would be too worried at that focal length and F stop. I take it any curvature could be corrected by something like DXO software. I think my ony slight reservation is that it is a DX only lens. Is that an issue at this price, possibly not. I must admit I will probably stay DX if they get the ISO performance up in the future.