Ultra Wide Angle for D100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by AKJ, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. AKJ

    AKJ Guest

    Hi
    I just got a new D100. I like it so far and assume I'll like it even better as
    time goes on. I've got a decent assortment of lenses for my N70 and they work
    fine, so far. My problem is that now I've lost the wide angle. 28mm x 1.5 =
    42mm which isn't so wide. On the other my Sigma 50x500 apparently is now
    75x750.

    I've found some wide angle which look interesting for both cameras. I wondered
    if I could get comments on any of them. I'm not always sure what makes one
    that much better than another, other than speed. Here goes.

    Nikon 18-35mm F3.5 $540
    Sigma 15-30mm F3.5 $579
    Sigma 17-35 F2.8 $439 Leaning this way
    Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 $649

    Any help or advice on these or other similar lenses is greatly appreciated.
    Thanks
    Al
     
    AKJ, Sep 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "AKJ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    > I just got a new D100. I like it so far and assume I'll like it even

    better as
    > time goes on. I've got a decent assortment of lenses for my N70 and they

    work
    > fine, so far. My problem is that now I've lost the wide angle. 28mm x

    1.5 =
    > 42mm which isn't so wide. On the other my Sigma 50x500 apparently is now
    > 75x750.
    >
    > I've found some wide angle which look interesting for both cameras. I

    wondered
    > if I could get comments on any of them. I'm not always sure what makes

    one
    > that much better than another, other than speed. Here goes.
    >
    > Nikon 18-35mm F3.5 $540
    > Sigma 15-30mm F3.5 $579


    I've seen several user reports of people being very happy with the 15-30.

    > Sigma 17-35 F2.8 $439 Leaning this way
    > Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 $649
    >
    > Any help or advice on these or other similar lenses is greatly

    appreciated.

    You missed the Nikon 12-24/4.0 and the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye. If I were to
    buy a D100, it would be for the 12-24/4.0...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Try the net 24-120 AF-s VR............. Beautifull......
     
    Jan Pasterkamp, Sep 23, 2003
    #3
  4. AKJ

    W6DKN Guest

    Jan Pasterkamp wrote:
    > Try the net 24-120 AF-s VR............. Beautifull......


    It's a nice concept if VR is more important than image quality, but it's
    image quality (even if you get a good one) is noticeably below that of the
    24-85 AF/S G (which sells for half the price). But neither of these are
    "ultra wide" on a D100. For that, the Nikkor 12-24 ED/IF/S DX is the only
    game in town, and it has excellent MTF numbers to boot ...

    = Dan =
     
    W6DKN, Sep 23, 2003
    #4
  5. AKJ

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Forget the Sigma 17-35, it's junk I haven't used the 20-40mm.

    The Sigma 15-30 is very very good.

    The Nikon 17-35/2.8 is sensationally good but very expensive.

    The Nikon 12-24 is very very good as well and the widest of the lot by some
    margin and is my choice if I was buying a WA lens now.

    I don't own the 12-24 yet as I already own the 17-35/2.8 which cost a
    fortune, but I borrowed a 12-24 the other day and tried it out quickly in
    the night time, this is one shot from it @ 12mm.

    http://www.gavincato.com/gallery/cityscape/aak

    cheers

    Gav




    "AKJ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    > I just got a new D100. I like it so far and assume I'll like it even

    better as
    > time goes on. I've got a decent assortment of lenses for my N70 and they

    work
    > fine, so far. My problem is that now I've lost the wide angle. 28mm x

    1.5 =
    > 42mm which isn't so wide. On the other my Sigma 50x500 apparently is now
    > 75x750.
    >
    > I've found some wide angle which look interesting for both cameras. I

    wondered
    > if I could get comments on any of them. I'm not always sure what makes

    one
    > that much better than another, other than speed. Here goes.
    >
    > Nikon 18-35mm F3.5 $540
    > Sigma 15-30mm F3.5 $579
    > Sigma 17-35 F2.8 $439 Leaning this way
    > Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 $649
    >
    > Any help or advice on these or other similar lenses is greatly

    appreciated.
    > Thanks
    > Al
    >
    >
     
    Gavin Cato, Sep 23, 2003
    #5
  6. AKJ

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Jan Pasterkamp wrote:

    > Try the net 24-120 AF-s VR............. Beautifull......


    Nice lens, but with the 1.5 crop it's not very wide angle..
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 24, 2003
    #6
  7. AKJ

    Ed Guest

    "Gavin Cato" <> wrote in message news:<3f70b7c8$>...
    > Forget the Sigma 17-35, it's junk I haven't used the 20-40mm.
    >
    > The Sigma 15-30 is very very good.
    >
    > The Nikon 17-35/2.8 is sensationally good but very expensive.
    >
    > The Nikon 12-24 is very very good as well and the widest of the lot by some
    > margin and is my choice if I was buying a WA lens now.
    >
    > I don't own the 12-24 yet as I already own the 17-35/2.8 which cost a
    > fortune, but I borrowed a 12-24 the other day and tried it out quickly in
    > the night time, this is one shot from it @ 12mm.
    >
    > http://www.gavincato.com/gallery/cityscape/aak
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > Gav


    Great shots... exposure? Filter?

    Thanks

    Ed
     
    Ed, Sep 24, 2003
    #7
  8. AKJ

    Paddler Guest

    Thanks. You picture of the city is spectacular. Not sure it will
    allow the 12-24 in my budget in any event. If I looked at the right
    one it was around $1100.

    Tokina has a 20x35 which isn't as wide but seemed pretty highly
    respected on the site I looked at. 20mm on the N70 is nice and 30mm
    on the D100 is better than the 42 I get with my 28x200mm Nikon. I
    noted the Sigma 17-35 as getting what you pay for. The same website
    didn't really like any of them.

    Are there any thoughts on the Tokina lens. Its priced at $600 but I
    don't recall the model.

    Thanks
    Al

    (Ed) wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Gavin Cato" <> wrote in message news:<3f70b7c8$>...
    > > Forget the Sigma 17-35, it's junk I haven't used the 20-40mm.
    > >
    > > The Sigma 15-30 is very very good.
    > >
    > > The Nikon 17-35/2.8 is sensationally good but very expensive.
    > >
    > > The Nikon 12-24 is very very good as well and the widest of the lot by some
    > > margin and is my choice if I was buying a WA lens now.
    > >
    > > I don't own the 12-24 yet as I already own the 17-35/2.8 which cost a
    > > fortune, but I borrowed a 12-24 the other day and tried it out quickly in
    > > the night time, this is one shot from it @ 12mm.
    > >
    > > http://www.gavincato.com/gallery/cityscape/aak
    > >
    > > cheers
    > >
    > > Gav

    >
    > Great shots... exposure? Filter?
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Ed
     
    Paddler, Sep 25, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim Smith

    Which wide angle lens for a D100?

    Tim Smith, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    649
    Chris Hoopes
    Nov 21, 2003
  2. Eberhard Funke

    Sandisk Ultra II, "new" Ultra, "original " Ultra

    Eberhard Funke, Jan 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    511
    Eberhard Funke
    Jan 13, 2004
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    732
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Digital Camera

    newcamz.blogspot.com, Aug 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    979
    minnesotti
    Aug 12, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,010
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page