Nikon Wide Angle Dilema

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Matt Clara, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    Hi there,
    I'm out to replace my Nikon 18-35. Very soft in the corners, it is. I
    could get a prime 18mm and 20mm and 35mm (I already have the 24mm and 28mm)
    , or I could get the 17-35mm af-s geewhiz wonder (I'd rather not spend that
    much cash), or a 20-35mm af-d (I'd like more range than that, though).
    Probably I'll buy used AI, AIS and AF lenses.
    What route would you choose?
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matt Clara

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    I could get a prime 18mm and 20mm and 35mm (I already have the 24mm and
    28mm)

    If you're suggesting getting all three primes 18/20/35 , then I'd vote in
    favour of that choice.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Feb 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. If you've already got a 24 and a 28, then just get the very nice 20mm AIS
    and you're set. The 16mm AIS is also nice to have around, but it's a bit
    extreme for most applications.
    -Kevin
     
    Kevin Neilson, Feb 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Matt Clara

    JR Guest

    I have a Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro, for my needs, it's excellent. The
    17-35/2.8 Nikkor is excellent. You could replace your primes with it,
    it's that good.

    JR
     
    JR, Feb 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Matt Clara

    Alan Browne Guest

    20mm is what I did, but I'll still likely get a 17-35 one day...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Matt Clara

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Forgot to add, I have the 20mm AFD Nikkor which is fairly good but I've
    heard/read the 18mm AFD is even better lense.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Feb 28, 2004
    #6
  7. Matt Clara

    Guest Guest

    I had the 20mm and wasn't particularly enamoured with it. But that could be
    me. I have the 35mm f2.0 and like it for it's lighter weight and smaller
    size. AF sometimes hunts but that O.K. I have the 17-35 f2.8, AF-S. I love
    it and use it a lot. YMMV




    mailto: clix.at.xeropixdotcom
     
    Guest, Feb 28, 2004
    #7
  8. Matt Clara

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I'm not sure how the prices compare, but I can say that the AF-S 17-35
    is well worth the price. It's a beautiful and essentially rectilinear
    wide-angle zoom, and the 17-mm position is wild indeed (over 90° of
    coverage).
     
    Mxsmanic, Feb 29, 2004
    #8
  9. Matt Clara

    Chris Guest

    I'd go with primes. Without as many moving parts, the lenses should last
    longer.

    Your choice is probably best made based upon your desired range, balanced by
    your personal history. Do you actually use 18mm more often, or is it closer
    to 20 or 30?
    I'd get afew decent primes to cover your special conditions. If you had the
    cash, I'd suggest an 18mm, with a 20-35 zoom, covering all bases.
     
    Chris, Feb 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    What are the out-of-focus effects on that lens like? Smooth, I hope?
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 29, 2004
    #10
  11. Matt Clara

    Mxsmanic Guest

    One doesn't see much out of focus at 17 mm, but in the rare examples I
    have, the out-of-focus areas are very smooth indeed.

    Overall, I've never been able to find anything wrong with this lens.
    Nikon really did a great job on it, and I love it.

    But judge for yourself. Here's an example of the OOF area in the
    background of a shot taken at close range at the 35mm position on Provia
    100F:

    http://www.mxsmanic.com/17OOF.jpg
     
    Mxsmanic, Feb 29, 2004
    #11
  12. I bought a very nice 20mm f3.5 from keh....A "bargain" for under $200, and
    its sharp to the edges. A little slow, but if you think about it, you
    usually want depth of field in a wide angle, because it takes in close up
    objects as well as distance stuff. So I seldom need a fast, wide aperture. I
    would love to have their 17-35 f2.8 wonder zoom, but $1300 is a bit out of
    my budget........
     
    William Graham, Feb 29, 2004
    #12
  13. Matt Clara

    Dallas Guest

    Matt Clara said:
    I would probably get three FFL lenses, purely because I am prejudiced
    against zoom lenses. I once had the Tokina 19-35mm AF193 and while it was
    a very good lens for the money, I found myself using it at 19mm 99% of the
    time.

    I love the field of view offered by 20mm lenses, but my recent acquisition
    of a Nikkor 35mm has me rather enamoured (sp?) with that length. It just
    seems *right*, somehow.

    you are a very good photographer, Matt, so I think you would need to get
    something that is worthy of the type of work you do.
     
    Dallas, Feb 29, 2004
    #13
  14. Matt Clara

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema
    Nikon has an older (that you can buy used) 20-35/2.8 that might be cheaper used
    than their 17-35/2.8 new or used (though the 17-35 might be the better lens).
    An alternative might be the just out (or about to be released) 17-35/2.8-4
    Tamron zoom. Sigma makes a similar range zoom but I am loath to reccommend
    Sigma because of compatability issue (w/ EOS, though). Another alternative, if
    you usually carry multiple bodies (for less lens switching) is to buy just your
    most important lenses (used) first. The reason you're buying the 18-35
    replacement is for (I'm assuming):

    a) Its wide end (18mm).

    b) Its a zoom and less need for lens changing.

    So if you had to/wanted to go the fixed route I would probably start w/ the
    wide end first and get either an 18 or a 20mm (you can find out which by
    noticing where/when/which widest angled focal length you tend to use your less
    than stellar 18-35 Nikon zoom at most). Getting an 18mm lens will probably be
    more expensive than the 20mm so if money is not an object go for a new 18mm AF
    lens, if money is an object go for a used 18mm AF lens or a used 20mm AF lens
    (or their MF counterparts which should possibly be even cheaper new or used,
    but you will lose metering functionality w/ N80 and below camera models, not to
    mention the obvious loss of AF on all camera models w/ the MF versions of these
    lenses ;-)). Then I would look at the long end of your current zoom lens use...
    What is the longest focal length you regularly use your Nikon zoom at -- 24mm?,
    28mm?, 35mm?, find this out and you have the other half of your 2 lens zoom
    substitute equation. For me it would be 24mm, for you it could be either 35mm
    or 28mm. Or you could find that you tend to have to main long end focal lengths
    uses for your zoom use such as 24mm and 35mm. Buy the longer end focal length
    wide angle that you would think would get the most use.

    If possible, rent or borrow any of the equipment mentioned above to get an idea
    of how simpatico you are w/ any of these choices in real life usage.

    Hope this helped.
     
    Lewis Lang, Feb 29, 2004
    #14
  15. Matt Clara

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema
    Bjorn on his Nikon-related site seems to suggest that the new 17-35/2.8 has a
    lot less chromatic aberration than the older 20-35/2.8, this would probably
    help w/ the bokeh and the clarity of backgrounds. Bjorn has a "test" of sorts
    w/ this lens and comments that you might useful, sorry I don't have the link,
    perhaps others could chip in with it...
     
    Lewis Lang, Feb 29, 2004
    #15
  16. Try: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
     
    William Graham, Feb 29, 2004
    #16
  17. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest


    Looks like Bjorn would have me purchase the 17-35mm zoom. It gets his
    highest rating where none of the primes he evaluates go that far.
    Plus the 18mm AIS is running $550+ used, and I only get one focal length
    with visible light fall off.
    My wife's going to kill me.
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 29, 2004
    #17
  18. Matt Clara

    Bowzah Guest

    Been there, done that, got the 17-35 and never regretted it, not for a
    second. Neither will you.
     
    Bowzah, Feb 29, 2004
    #18
  19. Matt Clara

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema
    Word of advice. First ren, purchase or borrow a bullet proof vest, then invest
    in the equipment ;-). Are there any used 17-35/2.8s around, maybe you
    canameliorate her reaction/sticker shock and your wallet shock by getting one
    used off of KEH or eBay if it exists for sale used. :)
     
    Lewis Lang, Feb 29, 2004
    #19
  20. Matt Clara

    columbotrek Guest

    Hard for me or anyone to tell you you should do. Other posts have more
    or less covered the angles. My thinking goes something like this. The
    Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 is a fine lens who's specifications match and even
    exceed those of the fixed FL models with one exception; Its physical
    size. Were it not for its $1,400 price, I would own one today. So
    instead, I went with a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 afd. I also have the 35mm
    f/2.0 afd. The price of the 18mm Nikkor is such that if you are
    thinking of buying that lens you may as well spring for the 17-35 as you
    are most of the way there price wise already. Then when you factor in
    the costs of buying an 18mm, 20mm, and a 35mm lens, the price of the
    zoom is totally affordable. The only other question is the larger size
    of the zoom vs switching glass a lot. Some times it very nice to have a
    small lens mounted like when using a table top tripod. Other times (most
    of the time for me) it better to have a quality zoom mounted. Good
    hunting...
     
    columbotrek, Feb 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.