UKC

Hi All,
I'm thinking about getting a wider angle lens for my nikon. I'm currently using a 50mm prime, which is a very nice lens and very very fast (f1.8) but i'm thinking about getting either a 35mm or 28mm. the 35mm is f2, the 28mm though is f2.8. Is it worth getting the wider angle 28mm, as i know the 35mm on my d200 would be the same as say an olympus trip so pretty good generally. Is it worth going for the 35mm for the faster aperture, or is the wider angle better generally. Most of my photos are at night so aperture is important.
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

Horses for courses. Some people who think 28mm is a bit too wide for their tastes, will reply "get 35mm", others will reply "even 28mm isn't THAT wide, look for a 24mm", and fence-sitters will advise 35mm as it's more versatile.
Regarding speed, don't forget that rule of thumb about hand-held shutter speed being approximately the inverse of focal length; ok not much in it between 28mm and 35mm I suppose. But IMHO you should be choosing a wide-angle lens based on field of view rather than on speed.

Is a D200 a "full frame" sensor then?

In reply to Blue Straggler:
I am also after wide angle lens but i am opting for the classic Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4G DX IF-ED

I may be wrong but i thought the only full frame (FX)camera Nikon does is the D3. The D200 has a DX sensor

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

If for pictures like in your flikr set the 28 is as big as you need to go. The difference between the f2.8 and f2 is only one speed or aperture difference isn't it? It needs to be a really good lens to work well wide open as well.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: I have a fixed 24mm i use on that camera, would prefer the versatility of the 12-24 though. You dont really 'need' a super fast lens for night work. Check the review of D200 here with the 12-24 for some pro user info.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

In reply to dek:

Most of my photos are moving subjects so fast is importan. I dont like relying on high sensitivity as it makes things too grainy. Few examples

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2340/2048639090_6939b8e4d6_o.jpg is f1.8, 1/6s shutter and 1600 iso. You couldnt do that with a slower lens as 1/6s is already incredibly slow and the D200 will only go out to ISO3200. Stationary subjets are a different matter of course.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/237/459748703_8e9490ac18.jpg?v=0 is ISO1600 f3.8 on an 18-70 kit lens. 1/3s shutter so i'm bloody lucky to get the shot sharp(ish) but the long shutter does make it look good. With a faster lens I can always close the aperture to slow the shutter, but not the opposite with the f3.8 I used for that one.

By superfast I mean f1.8, you get such a small depth of field from 1.8 anyway that 1.4 would be too much to use for much.

p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: Yup there is a 'limit' of sorts, i have a Nikkor 24mm F2. hardly used it on dig as the fast zoom 28-70 is just as good as will focus in low light easier than my eyesight. Might be worth looking at Noise ninja or similar, some forum users have tried it if i remember?

In reply to dek:

not heard of noise ninja. Personally I like to keep the photos as I took them, tweaking them afterwards is cheating to me and makes them fake. It only matters as I take photos for myself and nobody else. I've got some really good pics where the noise makes the picture, http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/459722535_ddedb2b221_b.jpg which to me looks like a black and white very old style photo but with islands of colour. I think its like that because i've turned the saturation right up on the camera but i've looked at it before (i've got it blown up to 18x12) and wondered if the car in the background is a cortina
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: Cant see the Cortina?! Just a thought though, have you considered shooting Raw with Nikon capture NX? you can reclaim up to a couple of stops and rescue images that are too 'dark' it also has a noise reduction mode too, came free with the D200 for a while.

In reply to dek:

I always shoot raw now, benefit of having an 8G card in the camera. All my photos are apparently too dark, but that normally gets fixed with a swift, 'stop being so sodding fluffy and thinking everything should be roses' reply from me
p

In reply to dek:

oh, and, there isnt a cortina in the picture, I just think it looks like it should. The renault in the background with the roof box gives it away
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/2508/groupID/14/cat...
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/3490/groupID/14/cat...
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/2131/groupID/14/cat...

In reply to kevin stephens:

how do you find the sigmas? The one i tried felt a bit gritty, not as if its full of grit, just that the insides may have been a bit rough. I played about with the 20mm f1.8 and its a bulky bit of kit. I just bought the 53mm f2 nikkor as I wanted the close range and i'll look at wide angles in the new year, maybe even the 12-24 nikkor. I liked the nifty little slide for switching from auto to manual, a very clever idea.
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

On your camera (D200), the 35mm is not wide-angle (it's around "normal") and your 50mm is a telephoto. From the shots on your flickr account, I would imagine that you're finding the 50mm is too narrow for the pictures you would like to take? I've found this is most noticeable indoors, where there is often not enough depth to use a telephoto for anything other than head shots.

I notice you also have a lens which takes you out to 18mm (18-70 or 18-135?). I'm presuming that you are using this with a tripod for some of the outdoors shots? If so, I would suggest that, for indoor photography, the low light performance is probably more important than an extra bit of width.

I have a 35mm f2 and indoor/low light is exactly the kind of photography I bought it for. I would add that, due to it's compact size and adaptability, it can stay on my camera for quite long periods. It's nice to know that you can shoot indoors and out, whether it's night or day...

Hope that helps,

J

In reply to orge:

yeah thats it basically. I've jsut got the 35mm and i'll play about with it for the next few days. None of the shots are with a tripod btw, every single one is hand held except the shot of the thames and a few where the camera is obviously resting on the ground. The other lens is the 18-70 kit lens and yes low light is vital.
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: I had a Canon EOS with a 28-to-something lens on it. When I got it I was delighted with the wideness of the angle but after a while I found that the distortion and perspective of the subject became a pain. After a long time I found that the perfect frame kept coming out at about 45mm. So I got a new camera (because I wanted one anyway ;+)) with a 50 mm prime (it's actually 75mm medium format which works out at 50mm in 35 mm terms).

The point I am making in a roundabout way is that very wide angle lenses, about beyond 35 mm, (1) distort the picture and (2) make the subject very small in proportion to the frame. This maybe what you're looking for but it may also be an unintended consequence.