where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hi!
What do you guys think, what is the chance for Nikon releasing a wide angle prime for dx? I know that for cx they have the 10mm/2,8. It would be lovely to have something like that for dx (18mm/2,8) even. In case I'm missing something and such lens exists feel free to tell :)
MMM Wondering, what would be the specific advantage to have a DX wide lens over an FX lens of the same focal length... ( a bit lighter , smaller ?)
I'm assuming your body does not have the AF motor.
There is nothing that has been in the mill at all and I don't see it happening since no other company has one or is thinking of one either.
The wide angle zooms are so good that it is hard to see why they would. Price point would be roughly $500-600 for a wide prime and the zooms are not much more, especially 3rd party like Tokina. Tokina zooms - 12-24 f4 or 11-16 f2.8 are two great lenses for wide angle and are fairly cheap.
Get the Tokina 11-16mm! Its 2.8, solid pro grade and with such a limited range it feels like a prime :)
Oh well it could be a 18mm/f4 even. I just want something in the spirit of the 35mm/f1,8. Cheap, small, tack sharp... I used the 18-55 and 18-105 for wide angle before, but they are not really acceptable. While the 18-55vr is sharp, it feels as if it doesnt have a proper infinity focus setting, I let the af lock on infinity and far away objects won't be sharp. (35mmf1,8 lens at f8 is a million times better, but i know apples and oranges) The 18-105 is better, but far less sharp when I look at closer objects and it feels big and cheap.
Yes my body doesn't have a focus motor, but I wouldn't mind focusing manually, as long as I have metering with a lens.
TaoTeJared talked me into the Tokina 12-24 F4 and I love it. Glad I got it. For now the wide angle zooms are the only thing out. Unless Nikon releases something eventually, but I haven't seen anything about plans for it. The fisheye is the only thing wider than the 24 prime and I personally would never shoot with a fisheye.
Nikoner said:
Me neither. Its results are just too fishy, and my audience is not fish.
I LOVE MY FISHEYE :) :D :D :D
Okay that was a little over the top but I find my fisheye to be a very useful lens and with Photoshop Cs5 they have a preset to remove distortion. True it is not the most practical lens but it definitely is a great lens for serious photographers. It is all about how you use it. Most people dont know how to use a fisheye so while the shots are cool they show no craft or skill. I love wideangles and fisheyes but it takes more skill to use one than a telephoto...
Kyoshinikon:
Can you post one of your favorite fisheye shots after distortion is removed.
Thanks.
Nikoner said:
Kyoshinikon:Can you post one of your favorite fisheye shots after distortion is removed.
Thanks.
One of these days... I am away from the computer with my shots on it but Ill post tonight or tomorrow. I honestly use my 14-24mm more for non distorting shots than my 10.5 but at 28mm it really isn't superwide and it is 5 times as large and hefty. I usually use my fisheye as is but I mainly use it for sports and street photography... When I get in front of my server again Ill post... :)
Gabbb said:
Oh well it could be a 18mm/f4 even. I just want something in the spirit of the 35mm/f1,8. Cheap, small, tack sharp... I used the 18-55 and 18-105 for wide angle before, but they are not really acceptable. While the 18-55vr is sharp, it feels as if it doesnt have a proper infinity focus setting, I let the af lock on infinity and far away objects won't be sharp. (35mmf1,8 lens at f8 is a million times better, but i know apples and oranges) The 18-105 is better, but far less sharp when I look at closer objects and it feels big and cheap.
Yes my body doesn't have a focus motor, but I wouldn't mind focusing manually, as long as I have metering with a lens.
Well there is, but not DX specific... The Tokina 17mm ATX PRO ( choose the pro version if you can find it) is a fantastic little lens...,
I would love to see one of the sports ones, when you can of course.
kyoshinikon said:
I LOVE MY FISHEYE :) :D :D :DOkay that was a little over the top but I find my fisheye to be a very useful lens and with Photoshop Cs5 they have a preset to remove distortion. True it is not the most practical lens but it definitely is a great lens for serious photographers. It is all about how you use it. Most people dont know how to use a fisheye so while the shots are cool they show no craft or skill. I love wideangles and fisheyes but it takes more skill to use one than a telephoto...
Not saying no one finds a use for it. It doesn't float my boat though. And why use a lens with so much distortion to have to correct it? Like you said though you use your other lens when you don't want the distortion.
Using a fisheye crossed my mind. After correction it is much wider than the widest ultrawide and still rectangular and everything, not exactly what i need though.
Because it boils down to the original question which was why there are no good aspherical wide angles made for Dx. The 15.5mm is the closest you get to that
Great discussion, I was about to buy tokina 12-24 f/4 but then thought it could be a hassle in low lights (did not try it), now looking at 11-16 f2.8. People have been raving about this lens.
tcole1983 said:
TaoTeJared talked me into the Tokina 12-24 F4 and I love it. Glad I got it.... The fisheye is the only thing wider than the 24 prime and I personally would never shoot with a fisheye.
Shot with my 12-24mm all day today. Dropped it twice on the frozen street in the snow. Still looks works like new.
I have a 15mm Sigma fisheye and keep it for those very few times a year when it is useful. Got such a good deal on it, I just keep it. Personally I don't like when software "straightens" fish-eyes out. You can always tell when one was and to me it just looks odd enough it takes away from an image. In my mind, either go with the look or use a different lens and move your feet.
Gabbb said:
Oh well it could be a 18mm/f4 even. I just want something in the spirit of the 35mm/f1,8. Cheap, small, tack sharp... my body doesn't have a focus motor, but I wouldn't mind focusing manually, as long as I have metering with a lens.
The closest you are going to get are the Tamron 14mm, Nikon 18mm, Tokina 17mm and I think there is a Sigma 14 or 15mm aspherical as well. Used they are under $400 maybe lower if you work eBay for a while. At that price you can get a 12-24 Tokina which is much more useful.
Cheap, small, tack sharp. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.
swame_sp said:
Great discussion, I was about to buy tokina 12-24 f/4 but then thought it could be a hassle in low lights (did not try it), now looking at 11-16 f2.8. People have been raving about this lens.
I didn't get the 11-16 because it doesn't have the built in motor. The F4 isn't really a problem. It has the same limitations as any other lens in low light...you would only gain 1 stop with the F2.8. Not a deal breaker...in either case you would need a tripod or higher ISO in low light.
If you are hesitant to get the 12-24 F4 I wouldn't be. Out of the pictures I have taken with it, only one came out blurry and I was being sloppy...the sun was going down and yeah...
There were both at night handheld.
swame_sp said:
Great discussion, I was about to buy tokina 12-24 f/4 but then thought it could be a hassle in low lights (did not try it), now looking at 11-16 f2.8. People have been raving about this lens.
With ISOs being what they are, being able to hand hold the lens to 1/20th sec, and how wide the lens is, 2.8 really doesn't add that much at all. I found the limit of the 11-16 with my 28-70 2.8 just left too huge of a gap in that 16-24 range (24-36mm equiv) that is really useful.
Up to each individual in the end. Either lens are really sharp and built like tanks.
One alternative, if you don't mind doing everything manually, would be the samyang 14mm 2.8. I kept hoping that Nikon would come up with something like a 16mm 2.8 but a while ago I finally decided to get the samyang instead and I don't regret it. Excellent value for the money but if one of your main objectives is a small lens, it might not be ideal.
TaoTeJared said:
Cheap, small, tack sharp. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.
Well, The new 35mm and 50mm afs primes fit that well. The 10mm f/2.8 for Cx also...
It's alright if I need to stop it down to f8 or even f11.
It being small is not the main objective here, but rather it not being larger than a 16-85vr.
Gabbb said:
Well, The new 35mm and 50mm afs primes fit that well. The 10mm f/2.8 for Cx also...
Nikon and every company has always made the 50 or 40mm and 50 DX equiv really cheap. Everything else has always been pricey. They are the easiest focal length to create for 35mm.
"It's alright if I need to stop it down to f8 or even f11."
I'm not sure if I'm following you on this. So you think you need f2.8 or don't... lost me here. Almost all wide angles go to f22.
It being small is not the main objective here, but rather it not being larger than a 16-85vr.
That is a smaller lens. Wide angle lenses especially cheap ones are not small by the nature of the optics. DX has been around for almost 10years- 7 of which were pro bodies and Nikon and others decided to go with zooms for this range long ago. It may be frustrating to hear, but that is what they seem to have decided.
There are a lot of great wide angle zooms out there from Tokina & Tamron that are cheap. In photography, Cheap lenses are anything around $500. Anything under that, are gifts from heaven.
You must log in to post.
