Purchased D90, need a wide angle lens.

[Roliath]

So I sold my d3000 + 18-55 and I picked up a D90.

Here is my gear so far, 35mm f1.8, 55-200mm vr, and sb400.

Next on my list is something to compliment the two lenses I have. I really would like a wide angle lens such as the sigma 10-20 or tokina 11-16. I RARELY used my 18-55 and I found myself using my 35mm all the time. I do want to sell the sb400 and get an sb600.

What recommendations can you guys give me to add to my current lens lineup. What it be a wise choice to sell my 55-200vr and get a 70-300 for that extra reach?

Thanks In Advance!

 

[northrop]

200mm and 300mm aren't all that different, IMO. however, the Nikkor 70-300 is a solid lens and just better all around of the two. I think the upgrade is more then justified for the optics alone.

With the wide angle, 11-16 gives you a very small range. I'm also not a fan of Tokina to begin with, so my opinion here is biased. Sigma would be a better choice here as the /2.8 isn't really needed here (but I guess that also depends on what you want to do with it). You can also pick up the Nikkor equivalent, depending on you budget of course.

Say, you end up with 10-20, 35, and 70-300. That's a decent starting point. Perhaps an 85 /1.8 or similar for portraits or some macro lens would be a nice addition. What do you shoot mostly?

 

[madFive]

The two wides I have for D90 are primes:
24mm f/2.8 AF
10.5mm F2.8 AF Fisheye

I'm really loving that little 24mm on D90 - it becomes a 36mm on the DX sensor, which for me is usually a perfect walk-around lens. That one is quickly becoming my go-to all-purpose lens.

Other good wide zooms to consider:
14-24mm f2.8 AFS - I'd love to upgrade to this one for any time the 24 just isn't wide enough, but it's really expensive...
10-24mm F3.5-4.5 12-24mm F4 - I'm not sure which of these slower DX zooms is actually better, but I personally wouldn't bother with them... (at least I'm not ever planning to)
Also not too sure on what other off-brand ones are good to look for.

 

[MN Scout]

For ultra wide angles this decision really depends on what things you like to shoot and when you shoot. I like taking a lot of outdoor photos and would be stopping down the f-stop and wouldn't necessarily get much use out of the f/2.8 option. I wouldn't consider a 24mm wide on DX especially when compared to the 10-20mm or 11-16mm. I use the D300 which is DX, and my main lens is the 16-85mm, and the 16mm is much wider than 24mm, and the 10mm even more so.

I went with the 10-24mm. This really is an ultra-wide, and people will be elongated and look odd if they are not in the center. My first big outing with it was this last week where I took exclusively scenery shots. The lens is very sharp for my uses, and isn't large, and could take filters if that is your thing. A nice thing is that this can zoom a nice amount over the Tokina 11-16, so you can adjust the framing a good amount. Of course if I really need f/2.8 for a shot I'm not going to get it, but adjusting the ISO up works well enough for my needs.

10mm, f/8

10mm, f/11 I'm leaving the lens flare in this shot as an example that you are going to get flare with a lens this wide if the sun is in certain positions in your frame. This lens is supposed to be more resistant, but it will happen.

10mm, F/8 Slightly different composition, with the sun further to the edge and diffused by light clouds. No lens flare issues in this one.

13mm, f/6.3

If you want more samples I can try and provide them if it'll help you.

 

[Roliath]

Lately, its been "portraits" for the most part. My 35mm 1.8 stayed on for the 24/7 and I used it to shoot family. However I would like to play with a wide angle so I can start getting some nice architecture shots.

I did look at the 24mm, but I want to find one locally so I can see if that would be wide enough for me. And the cost isn't that much, could you post some sample shots madfive? If you don't mind.

I think 85mm would be too close for my taste to be honest. A local seller has a 24-120vr for 300 in mint condition, I know its not exactly what I was looking for but for the price i wonder if it will fit my needs @ 24mm. And he has an 18-135 af-s as well for 250.

Before I made this thread, I was leaning towards the 24mm prime but I couldn't find any shots with it to get an idea how wide it is on a d90. I don't mind buying new/used either and I purchased this D90 to get access to the older lenses that would not autofocus on my old d3000.

EDIT: MNScout, Yeah that looks great. I think you sold me ! lol


BUDGET wise, I'd like to stay under 500.

 

[ben chi(f4)]

I'd recommend the 24mm ƒ/2.8

 

[Roliath]

I'd recommend the 24mm ƒ/2.8

i'm bidding on a 10-20 sigma, if i don't win. I'm gonna go to my local camera shop and see if I can't rent something in the wide variety to see what will suit my needs.

 

[madFive]

could you post some sample shots madfive? If you don't mind.

Sure - I'm always up for showing off pics. I use the 24mm (DX=36mm) for all kinds of random stuff - it's just a great general-purpose lens.

I bought the lens mainly for doing large-group portraits, and it works great for that, but you'll just have to take my word on that, since I'm not posting any of those shots here.

F/2.8 is good for low-light shots. Notice good bokeh and extremely sharp in-focus area.

Good for not cutting off the ends of long-guns.

It's pretty good for land-scapes (when I don't need the full 180* view, or don't want fisheye distortion).

And it's the lens I use for playing with filters - it takes 52mm filters, which are pretty easy to find, and cheaper than larger sizes. Here's an IR photo w/ the 24mm F/2.8.

 

[strikeout]

Have you thought about a 16-85? I know its not the widest but I have one on my D90 and its always met my needs on the short end.

 

[obey3one]

I had the sigma 10 20 for a while and loved it, still regret selling it. It can be had for pretty cheap on craigslist. I bought used and actually made money off it when I sold it.

 

[Filter]

70-300 is an amazing lens for the price. the extra reach is way worth the money.

 

[MN Scout]

The 70-300 lens is a great lens. I have the older 70-300mm D that requires a screw drive and has no VR, and I thought this was a great lens. Then I tried my fathers 70-300 VR and I was blown away by how helpful the VR was. The VR version is also taller and more expensive.

Here is a quick and dirty comparison photo.

70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G VR, 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 D, 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 G VR, 50mm 1:1.8D, 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5 G, Rokinon 8mm 1:3.5

 

[madFive]

Yeah, I have the 70-300 AFS VR as well - it's a great lens for the price. It's fun to use at the zoo.

 

[Roliath]

Have you thought about a 16-85? I know its not the widest but I have one on my D90 and its always met my needs on the short end.

I picked up an 18-55 for 75 bucks off of clist, used but with all accessories. I still want something wider though.

70-300 is an amazing lens for the price. the extra reach is way worth the money.

I agree, but i'm talking wide angle not zoom. At least for now, I will more than likely go with the 70-300 if I can find one locally for a good price.