Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Crop body, funds running low... and desperately need a wide-angle

Shacklebolt

Shacklebolt

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 2, 2004
596
0
I shoot on a pretty nice Nikon crop body, have a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4... and the wide angle I'm stuck with is a 6 year-old 18-135 3.5-5.6

I mean, this is a little ridiculous -- namely how lazy I've been about finding a good "middle ground" between a $2,000 Nikkor and a basically-worthless kit lens. I consider myself to be, at the very least, a decent semi-pro (or at least, I get paid like I am, for some reason), and I've just taken to renting a wide angle (and/or body) when I need it. But that's just not realistic all the time. And 18 mm on a crop body just ain't gonna cut it in this full frame world.

Yes, yes, I'll save up, and I'll also do some independent research (Google is my friend). But I'd also really like some input as to a good, cheap, wide-angle lens for Nikon cameras. Can be prime, can be off-brand, whatever you think is good. Just not a fisheye. And, preferably, $500 or less.
 
I have heard good things about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. If your camera body has a built-in AF motor, you can go with the original version. If you don't have a built-in AF motor, you'll need the DX-II.

Both versions are over $500 new, but you may be able to find them used for less.

(Edit: ijohn.8.80 beat me to it.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mtbdudex
Another vote for the Tokina. Its flares are kind of gnarly so depending on your style you might want to get the version two, which has less gnarly flares.

It's sharp with very little distortion, but there's some CA in the corners, too. The 10-24m Nikon also looks nice, but is more expensive.
 
Another option is the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. It is a little less expensive than the 11-16mm ($400-450 new (USD), depending on whether you get the I or II).

Maybe not quite as well-regarded as the 11-16mm, but I have read good things about it, as well.
 
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I haven't had any trouble with flare, but I never shoot against the light (sun, and other strong lights). I use this lens for photographing the Auroras, but these never cause lens flare with any lens.
 
You could perhaps rent a lens or borrow one from a friend? I often lend my lenses to friends).
 
I really enjoyed using Sigma's 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for a project on my D7000. I've switched up to a D800 finally, so I'm getting a little bang for my buck on my Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8, but I'd still rent the Sigma if I had a similar project.
 
Shacklebolt said:
I shoot on a pretty nice Nikon crop body, have a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4... and the wide angle I'm stuck with is a 6 year-old 18-135 3.5-5.6

I mean, this is a little ridiculous -- namely how lazy I've been about finding a good "middle ground" between a $2,000 Nikkor and a basically-worthless kit lens. I consider myself to be, at the very least, a decent semi-pro (or at least, I get paid like I am, for some reason), and I've just taken to renting a wide angle (and/or body) when I need it. But that's just not realistic all the time. And 18 mm on a crop body just ain't gonna cut it in this full frame world.

Yes, yes, I'll save up, and I'll also do some independent research (Google is my friend). But I'd also really like some input as to a good, cheap, wide-angle lens for Nikon cameras. Can be prime, can be off-brand, whatever you think is good. Just not a fisheye. And, preferably, $500 or less.
Click to expand...
I use a 14-24mm Nikon which is awesome on both my crop body and D750. It will be a bit higher than your looking to spend though, even second hand.
I know you said no to a fish eye, but with the right PP, you can still get a nice sharp image with the Nikon 10.5mm.
I've never used a third party lens, but check the DXO ratings, and maybe rent before committing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back