UKC

A couple of years ago I made the mistake of putting my beloved Nikkor 20mm f-2.8D down on a rock in the cairngorms and forgetting to pick it up again.

I have been using a 35mm f-1.8 as a stopgap until I could afford to replace it, but I think the time has now come.

I'm thinking of getting the same again, as it was a lovely piece of kit but I'm willing to consider other options.

So what good, sharp, fast low distortion wide angle lenses are available that don't weigh too much and won't force me to sell a kidney.

I do a lot of night time stuff so a decent manual focus ring with stops and a scale would go down well too.

Given the cost of the nikkor 20mm my realistic budget is probably about 500 quid, but obviously I would prefer to pay less.

In reply to davidbeynon:

My current camera has a crop sensor, though I have a slight preference for full frame lenses in case I can afford one for my next upgrade.

In reply to davidbeynon:

This guy recommends the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/night_sky___astrophotography.shtml

But looks very expesive

In reply to ChrisJD:

I just looked it up. £1300 - way beyond my budget unfortunately.

In reply to davidbeynon: Do Samyang make something suitable? I just got their 7.5mm fisheye for my E-M5 and it's very good, especially for the price. Fully manual.

In reply to davidbeynon:

At the cheaper end I have used the Tamron 10-24mm lens for a few years now with some great results. Thankfully I have found it also to be a very robust lens.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/search/?q=tamron%2010-24mm&cat02=2020&am...

The samyang 14mm is supposed to be pretty good and very cheap and FF.

I've got the sigma 8-16mm which I love, it might be a bit too slow for you, so consider the Tokina 11-16mm which is f/2.8 and very well recieved.

If you don't need it that wide, I also have the Sigma 18-32mm f/1.8 which is pretty much the sharpest lens on apsC, although this is slightly over budget.

In reply to craig h:

I just read Ken Rockwells review of it, which led me to this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

FX only, but promising!

In reply to davidbeynon:

That was supposed to say DX only.

In reply to davidbeynon: I haven't used it outside of a shop environment but I hear good things about:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15

Not quite as good as the Nikon, but at £360 it's a fair bit cheaper.

It's on my list for when I've got a bit of spare cash.

In reply to davidbeynon: ...and I'm late and that's already been posted.

In reply to davidbeynon:

How about a manual focus 20mm? I got a f3.5 for £180, it's tiny and great. Mind you not that wide on DX. I just shoot it with film.

In reply to davidbeynon:

The tokina lens is well worth the money

In reply to icnoble:

Agree, I've got the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ands it's pretty good!

In reply to davidbeynon:
I got the Nikon 16-35 F4. I did a LOT of research, tried all those mentioned (except the 10-20sh options) and eventually decided on said 16mm zoom. Admittedly, it does have some distortion but it's incredibly clear. Distortion is easily fixed w/digital and to be fair it's a usual attribute of a WA zoom. Some plastic components are a put-off and it's corpulent but it's by far my fav. lens I've ever owned. See what Ken Rockwell has to say these days, I'm out of touch with him but he does thoroughly test lenses.

If you really want the ability to use on a FX, I strongly recommend the 16-35mm. If you can reside at the DX sensor (I couldn't), then consider the Nikon 10-22 (or 20?) as this is a really REALLY good lens and will offer the same field of view at the 16-35 on a FX.

Obviously, the 14-24 is the gold standard, second only to the 14mm prime (it has less distortion at the corners on FX). But in reality, you'd struggle notice any difference. The 20mm AF-D is also a good option, but not wide enough for me.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Thanks for the recommendations everyone. I think I have a reasonable list to take a look at.

In reply to davidbeynon:

This is the go to guy, about Nikon lens quality!

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

In reply to davidbeynon:

I got the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 a couple of years ago and probably wouldn't get it again if I had to do a similar hunt now, I'd get the Tokina f2.8. The Sigma is too blurred at the wide end and the aperture's wide open. It's sometimes not too noticeable depending on the subject but for things like architectural interiors and so on, it's not great. The extra £75 or so for the constant f3.5 option meant I paid over the odds for something I effectively couldn't use. The very wide facility is nice though....

In reply to davidbeynon:

Thanks everyone.

I have decided to give the Tokina a go for now.

In reply to davidbeynon:

so would this fit with a D3100?

In reply to davidbeynon:

+1 tokina 11-16 I even kept it as a 16mm prime since going to FX

In reply to davidbeynon:

Tokina 11-16 just landed on my desk. Sadly my camera is at home, but I should have some test pics by the end of the weekend.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Test shot of my absurdly untidy living room: http://www.spectral3d.co.uk/misc/DSC_4848.JPG

Fairly noisy due to ISO 1600. Makes the room look massive

In reply to davidbeynon:

Is that why you got it?!

Looks pretty good for the high ISO. That shot has given me an idea.....

In reply to Fraser:

I got it mostly for night shots with massive skies, but some of the pics people have linked up thread have convinced me to try and be a bit more creative.