Sun 16-Mar-14 12:37 PM | edited Sun 16-Mar-14 12:38 PM by four eighty sparky
That's like saying you want a new Porsche, but don't want to spend more than $20,000.
FWIW, there is no such thing as 'the best' of anything,.... even more so when the budget excludes many of the options. Most will say the Nikkor 14-24 is 'the best', but some will drop it from consideration due to lack of filter threads. Others simply cannot afford it. No matter how good it is, if it simply does not perform the way you want, or if it's beyond your financial capabilities, then it really isn't 'the best'.
Look into a 17-35 AF-D, or 16-35 AF-S. The former can be found used within your budget, the latter retails new for $960.
I hate when people ask me what I see myself doing in 5 years...... I don't have 2020 vision!
Depends what you mean by wide angle. A 35mm is a wide angle on a full frame camera and for under a grand you can't buy a better lens than the Sigma 35f/1.4 Art lens for both a prime lens and wide angle, $899.00. My second choice would be the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 that currently has a $100.00 rebate that ends last day of March which puts it at $599. My third choice would be the Tokina 11-16f/2.8 ultra wide zoom. Another great option is the Nikon 16-35 f/4 currently at $999.00 with rebate. Good luck!
Sun 16-Mar-14 12:50 PM | edited Sun 16-Mar-14 12:57 PM by GiantTristan
Considering your limit of $1000, the best choice would probably be the Samyang 14/2.8 which you can get for about $400. The "best" wa lenses in my opinion are the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and the Zeiss 15/2.8. Both these lenses are outstanding, but unfortunately also rather expensive. The Nikon has AF, is a zoom lens but does not take ordinary filters. The Zeiss is MF, is a prime lens, but takes filters. The Zeiss lens has an edge regarding flare resistance and lack of distortions. As already ponted out, it is not quite clear which focal length you would consider as wa for the D800.
Sun 16-Mar-14 01:46 PM | edited Sun 16-Mar-14 01:58 PM by metalmariachi
the old tried and true Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 is still a great lens. not as wide nor as expensive (around $500)as the newer 18-35, 17-35 or 16-35 but it is built like a tank and accepts 77mm filters.
Tokina has a 16-28mm f28 ATX pro within your budget also. the Tokina ATX lenses I've used are very well made and sharp.
You can find the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5/4.5 D used for around $300 so if low light isn't a priority you can save a lot.
I have the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 I live in Gettysburg, Pa. For me it's the perfect every day lens, in town I can get up close and personal and still capture the expanse of the battle fields in pretty much any lighting.
I am interested in thoughts on adding a prime lens in the 20 to 28 mm range to improve on my current lens inventory for my D610. I have three Nikon zoom lenses that now work in this range. An 18-35 3.5-4.5D, 24-85 3.5-4.5G VR, and a 24-120 3.5-5.6G. I assume a prime lens in this range may be would be better than any of these 3 lenses at, for example, 24 mm, but am not sure if it would be significant. If not, which of the 3 zooms might be best for about 24mm? I was considering either a 20mm 2.8D, a 24mm 2.8D or a 28mm 2.8D or 1.8G. I do have DxO optics Pro 9 for lens corrections which covers each of these for my D610. Is it a waste of money to go with one of these lenses over my current zoom lenses for an improvement or really too minor unless I spring for a $2K+ wide angle prime(not likely). How is using an "overly wide" prime lens like the 20mm and cropping to get the 24 or 28 field of view as compared to using a zoom? For a super wide shot, I do have a Tamron 14mm so going with another wider or slightly better zoom seems not to be worthwhile.
I am interested in thoughts on adding a prime lens in the 20 to 28 mm range to improve on my current lens inventory for my D610. I have three Nikon zoom lenses that now work in this range. An 18-35 3.5-4.5D, 24-85 3.5-4.5G VR, and a 24-120 3.5-5.6G. I assume a prime lens in this range may be would be better than any of these 3 lenses at, for example, 24 mm, but am not sure if it would be significant. If not, which of the 3 zooms might be best for about 24mm?
A 24mm f/2.8 would likely be a touch better than your zooms until around f/5.6 or so and would allow you to use a wider aperture. Whether it would be significant for your own shooting I can't really say; it would depend on how often you shoot nearly wide open at these focal lengths. Of your three zooms, I would expect the 18-35mm to be better than either of the 24-xxx zooms.
Is it a waste of money to go with one of these lenses over my current zoom lenses for an improvement or really too minor unless I spring for a $2K+ wide angle prime(not likely).
I own a 17-35mm f/2.8, a 20mm f/2.8 and a Sigma 28mm f/1.8. Of the three lenses, the one that sees the least use is the 20mm f/2.8. Perhaps I'm not very good at visualizing wide angle compositions, but I find the ability to shoot several perspectives of a subject at different distances and focal lengths quite useful.
I wouldn't call wide angle primes a waste of money, but before buying one I suggest working with your 18-35mm f/3.5~4.5 a bit longer. Once you realize what focal lengths you tend to use and what limits you've run into with that lens, you'll be in a better position to whether to buy one or more primes or to consider a newer wide angle zoom.
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck
Thanks for the information Kirk. I was looking at either the f1.8 28mm Nikon or the 16-35 zoom. The zoom range sounds enticing but the size of it formidable. I bought a Nikon 28-300 and once I had it in hand I wondered if I would carry it around rather than just the 24-120. I think the 16-35 may be nearly as big. It seems every time I jump and buy a lens, a review comes out trashing it. The f1.8 28mm Nikon sounds like a solid lens not easily beaten for a good while. The gain of a 16 over an 18 mm alone for the newer zoom versus what I have seems not to be a good reason to jump on it. The idea of the 24, f1.4 looks nice but the cost does not for the amount of wide angle I shoot. I'm just a lens junkie. I have had occasion to use my Tamron 14mm so maybe the 16-35 is a good idea. See what I mean. Just an undecided lens junkie.
You can find a used 17-35mm f/2.8D ED IF AF-S for about $1000.00 or less in EX condition at KEH. The 16-35mm f/4G ED IF AF-S VR for about $900.00 or so is another excellent choice. While the 14-24mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S is better, even a BGN used copy is almost 1.5 times your maximum budget.
Disregarding for the moment the fact that "wide angle" encompasses a pretty wide category of lenses: since you say for landscape, autofocus is probably not of prime importance for you, so why not trying to get your hands on a used Zeiss lens? I have a d800e, and I when I bought the camera, I cot myself 2 Zeiss lenses from Ebay, an 18mm f/3.5 and a 35mm f/2, both like new and both at very reasonable prices, well below 1000 $. And in these days, since the Sigma 35mm makes all the headlines, the price for the Zeiss should have dropped still. And trust me, it is a very good lens. As for the 18mm, that has always been in the shadow of the 21mm (which, I think, still sells pretty high), and it is often not regarded that highly. I think, however, particularly if you are on a budget, this is a real sleeper - I at least use it all the time, I wouldn't like to miss it. Another lens you might be seriously thinking about is the Zeiss 28mm f/2 and, of course, the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 which, for al I know, is dead cheap for what it does. Finally, I have a Samyang 14mm f2.8 which sells, I think, for something like 400-450$ (perhaps even less). Very wide and very sharp, everyone knows it has a whopping distortion which can, however, corrected in PP (for landscape in many cases not necessary).
By all means let us know what you are thinking of in terms of Wide Angle.
For your price, an alternative to something as wide as the 14-24 Nikkor is the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. It's slower, but as wide as you can g for FX without going to a fisheye. There are two versions, and a new copy of the vII is under $1,000.
Of course if you want a prime there are lots of options, new and used, that would meet your budget. I have a Nikon 18mm f/2.8, for instance, which is my widest FX, normal prime.
Lot of good choices Lynn for the DX sensor - for DX lenses one is much better off with the large array of DX-targetted WA Zooms (and general dearth of available DX wide angle primes). I would suggest you start up a thread on the topic, would be good to hear the opinions of DX-shooting WA aficionados here at Nikonians!
Bill, one thing that struck me when you mentioned your existing lenses is consider replacing your 18-35D lens with it's newer cousin the 18-35G lens and it won't break the bank. It has a good reputation.
In the same vain replacing your 24-120D with the new 24-120G would offer many potential rewards.
I have a 16-35 and like it but don't shoot it enough to provide authoritative opinions other than it tests well (I tested it side by side against my pre-existing kit and it easily killed what I had). I think there are many authoritative users of this lens and seeing their results, they look stellar. I don't find the 16-35 huge, so for my needs very little drawback to this one.
I know what you mean, but for me, the 14-24mm itself would be a compromise. In order to achieve ultimate quality in a super-wide zoom, I would have to compromise on weight, size, focal length range, ease of using filters, and VR...
Mick, There is NO BEST wide angle lens under $1,000.
What the OP should do, is just wait a bit longer and save for it. In the past, I compromised on quality by purchasing... " cheap ".
I learned my lesson the hard way. Purchase something cheap for $1,000, find out it's no good, then when you sell it, you get maybe $700 ~ $800 for it. Much better to wait a bit longer, and get the item you really want .
>" Why is it that some only think a f/2.8 lens or faster >is a "good lens?" > >Generally, people don't like slow lenses,once they have some >experience with lenses. > So people shouldn't buy all those f/4 and f/5.6 telephotos and the new Tamron 150-600?
More generally, I think people should buy what they can afford, have something that they can take a picture with, and enjoy photography. The results matter, not the tool used to get them.
A follow-up to my previous post: I just read on DXO a quite favorable review of the Samyang 24mm f/1.4. Don't know it's price, but should be relatively cheap, so for landscape, if you like the focal length, this is definitely also an option.
For FX, my choices are my Sigma 12-24 f4.5 - 5.6 (if good light) which does well as Mick mentioned and I really like my 16-35 f4 Nikkor. I also am delighted with my older AF-D version of 20mm f2.8 Nikkor. All are well under $1000 and in the 16-35 case I see the prices is below $1000 now. I paid about $1200 a couple of years ago.
This may not be very helpful as I recommend you try to put some more cash into your budget. You have a premium camera body. Don't compromise what it can do with 2nd class optics. Save and scrounge another $700 so you can get the 14 - 24 mm. After you first couple of shots you will forget all about how much it cost.
I have never regretted spending more than I thought I could afford at the time to get the best but many's the time I have regretted saving a few bucks for something that seemed just good enough, then gone out later and spent the money anyway to upgrade.