Hello everyone. I currently own a D5100 and I'm looking for a wide angle lens for street photography. I prefer glass that's very sharp and fast. I live in Los Angeles and there's a lot of alleys, bridges and old buildings. My budget is under $1000.00. What would you recommend? Thank You
I currently own the kit lens. Which is ok but not much different than the 16-35mm as far as coverage. I know the 16-35mm is higher rated glass but I have a D5100 which makes it a 24mm-52.5mm with its crop sensor. I was looking for something a lil bit wider.
After doing a lil research the 16-35mm looks great.
The sigma 10-20mm is on sale at BH for 429.00. How is the picture quality on this lens? I know i can get on the DxOMark site but whats your take? Does it work well on the D5100? Dont know much about third party lens or any lens. Thanks.
Sun 25-Nov-12 07:43 AM | edited Sun 25-Nov-12 07:52 AM by jamesvoortman
The sigma 10-20 is available in two versions; a f4 - 5.6 and a fixed f3.5 which costs a little more. Both are Sigma EX lenses (their professional range). I have the older f4 - 5.6 model and it is very sharp (probably sharper than your kit lens).
Wonderful for very wide angle scenes. Although the lens has very low distortion values, the images can appear grossly distorted due to strong perspective effects if you do not hold the camera level when shooting. This is equally true for all rectilinear ultra-wide angle lenses so I would not want to go too wide for street photography.
I have found that it is often too wide and I most frequently work in the middle to long end of its range, even for landscapes. For street photography I think you will often want something a little longer so unless you are prepared to carry a second lens, the 12-24 or 10-24 Nikkors may suit you better. Tokina also makes some superb ultra-wide angle lenses but these may be out of the stated price limit.
Sat 24-Nov-12 03:28 AM | edited Sat 24-Nov-12 03:32 AM by jdphotos
Forgot to mention that VR comes in very handy for shooting street scene, I assume not much action in it. I got sharp result hand-held at 1/4s with VR on.
Good glass is always worth waiting a bit for sufficient fund. Given D600 already marked down by $100 to $2000 now, I would guess the competition on FX body will heat up quickly. It would be good to have FX lens. I am waiting for Nikon to issue a FX body filling between D600 and D800.
Of course, 16mm on D5100 becomes 24mm effectively, you lose some wideness, but there is always a tradeoff.
I recommend the 12-24 DX. You can get one used for $500-600. It's a pro-build quality lens that goes very wide on DX (18mm), yet goes out to an equivalent of 36mm. Some consider 35mm to be a good normal FL for street photography. Then throw an AFS 50mm f1.8G in your pocket for low light and short tele, and you're there. All for under $800.
>I recommend the 12-24 DX. You can get one used for $500-600. > It's a pro-build quality lens that goes very wide on DX >(18mm), yet goes out to an equivalent of 36mm. Some consider >35mm to be a good normal FL for street photography. Then >throw an AFS 50mm f1.8G in your pocket for low light and short >tele, and you're there. All for under $800. > >They will both work great on a D5100.
I thought that if a lens was a DX lens, that the focal length specified was the focal length you got on a DX body, and you can only use the lens on a DX body, unless you want to shoot in crop mode on an FX body.
The only time it is necessary to worry about the FX -> DX Field of View conversion was using an FX lens on a DX body.
If so, the 12-24 DX gives you just that: 12mm on the wide end, 24mm on the close end - and can only be used on DX bodies.
I think you still need to time the crop-ratio to get the equivalent angle of view on a DX body for DX lens. The DX lens just means you only can use it in crop-form on FX body. But the crop-ratio factor still applies.
>Hi, Bob, > >I think you still need to time the crop-ratio to get the >equivalent angle of view on a DX body for DX lens. The DX lens >just means you only can use it in crop-form on FX body. But >the crop-ratio factor still applies.
Sun 25-Nov-12 09:03 AM | edited Sun 25-Nov-12 09:04 AM by drFrank
I own the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5-5.6 and it does a nice job but if I were purchasing an Ultra-wide again, I would consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
A few things about the Sigma - it is a fat lens and if you keep the hood on (reversed) it takes up more room in the bag than I like.
Sigma makes a wider lens too if you want a unique ultra wide look.
Another item about ultra wide lenses is the distortion factor. I corrected this image in LR 4.x and converted to b&w in Silver Efex Pro
Overall, for the money, the Sigma 10-20 does a nice job. However, for me, it is a lens I use in unique situations but my favorite lens (although not ultra wide) is the Nikon 24-120 f/4 vr (it is more than your stated price though).
This is shot on a DX body
One more thought - Tamron makes a nice lens - 17-50 f/2.8. I owned the older version (without VR) and it did a nice job. I have large prints that I display at wedding shows made from this lens. The older version is compact and when I owned it, I paired it with the Nikon 70-300 vr for my travel kit since both used the 67mm filter which makes it nice for sharing polarizer filters.