Want to Buy Low-Priced Wide-Angle lens for my Nikon F5?

[bl1nd]

I'm interested in finding a wide-angle lens that's hopefully under $300 USD that is compatible with my F5. The 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens that Nikon offers has steep falloff, which I don't want. Any suggestions?

 

[Brian Legge]

You have a huge number of options for under $300. The 28mm 2.8 seems to be relatively popular. If you can almost buy two of the manual focus ones with your budget.

 

[bl1nd]

Thanks! I'm still trying to figure out lenses, and I'd love to hear any testimonials on ones suggested.

 

[tkamiya]

35mm f/1.8 DX has a steep fall off because it is designed for Nikon's line of CROP SENSOR DIGITAL cameras. 35mm film require non DX lenses. You'll definately need to avoid all DX type. (some will work but not optimally)

 

[bl1nd]

35mm f/1.8 DX has a steep fall off because it is designed for Nikon's line of CROP SENSOR DIGITAL cameras. 35mm film require non DX lenses. You'll definately need to avoid all DX type. (some will work but not optimally)

Haha, I know about that at the very least.

I'm considering the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, it seems the most reasonable.

 

[mudman]

I've got a 28mm f2.8 AF (second version) that has been sitting in my bag with no use since I bought my 17-35 f2.8. Yours for $130 if you want it.

 

[FilmOnly]

The 35/2.8 AI is the best wide angle Nikon I have used. In fact, it may perhaps be the best wide angle lens I have used, period.

 

[epatsellis]

if you can find a Kiron made Vivitar 28 f2 (ser # 22XXXXXX), many consider it to easily be the equal of the Nikon, and has CRC and a closer focusing distance as well. It's been a while, but as I remember they typically sell for around $100 to $150 at most (it'd have to be really clean and unused to get that high)

 

[MFstooges]

Depends on the use but 24mm could be too wide on most of the street shooting. Gallen Rowell loves his 24mm f2.8 but I find my 24mm copy is less sharp than 35mm f2.0. Probably it's a not so good copy but since I mostly do landscape I still use it a lot.

 

[removed-user-1]

The 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.0 AF-Nikkors are both good lenses. I've never used the 28mm f/2.8 AF-Nikkor, but I once had a Sigma 28mm f/1.8 AF lens that I liked (it was the older version with 58mm threads, not the huge new one). You should be able to find used examples of any of these lenses priced within your budget.

 

[ruilourosa]

cosina 19-35

 

[Cork]

I'll second the Kiron 28mm f/2; I have one for my MD Minolta system and it's quite good.

 

[liquid695]

Nikon AF 35 mm f 2.0 my choice

 

[waynecrider]

I think it comes down to which FL you find preferable. A 35mm is more a normal lens to me, and I never quite took to a 24mm for some reason. But I do like the 28mm fov, although I can't afford the F2 model which from what I hear is a much better lens then the F2.8.

 

[kuyman]

The Tamron 19-35mm is an exceptionally good cheap ultrawide if you can get your hands on one. I've had two of them and had excellent luck.

 

[bl1nd]

The Tamron 19-35mm is an exceptionally good cheap ultrawide if you can get your hands on one. I've had two of them and had excellent luck.

Ultrawide, eh? That's extremely tempting. What size filter would it take? 77mm?

 

[MFstooges]

The Tamron 19-35mm is an exceptionally good cheap ultrawide if you can get your hands on one. I've had two of them and had excellent luck.

I agree for ultrawide zoom this Tamron is a decent performer. Open wide there is noticeable light fall off but most people can live with that.

oh and filter size is 77mm.

 

[John NYC]

I find that 24mm is pretty hard to control handheld if you care about relatively sane backgrounds of buildings and such on your street shots. The lines get pretty seriously weird if you are not pretty level. For me 28mm is as wide as I want to go handheld. I have the 28mm AI-S and it is fabulous... but it is manual focus, if that matters to you. I previously had the 35mm f/2D and found it great in the middle but slightly soft in the corners on full frame. If you are mainly shooting things that show up in the 70 percent middle area of the frame, it is a totally fabulous lens. Has a very good look to it in b&w especially, unlike the very bland 50mm f/1.8D (which I still have), which looks very ordinary, but sharp.

 

[tony lockerbie]

You are better off with an AF Nikkor on the F5, they can be modified to take the Ais lenses, but it's just as easy to get a newer one. The 28 2.8 or 35 F2 should be in your budget, and are both fine lenses.

 

[mudman]

the F5 needs no modification for AIS lenses. Non-ai (original nikkors from the 50's to late 70's) need the mount to be modified either on the lens or on the F5 camera body.

 

[rodrickreidsma]

I've got a 28mm f/2.0 AIS that needs a new home. Ideally I'd like to get around $300 for it.

 

[clayne]

I've got a 28mm f/2.0 AIS that needs a new home. Ideally I'd like to get around $300 for it.

Roderick, you should not sell that lens.

For the others, you said wide right? 20/2.8 AIS. Forget the AF stuff, get right up in there.

 

[budrichard]

The 24mm f2.8 Nikkor in whatever version you purchase is one of the best Nikkors ever produced. I had one of the first and it became my normal lens for me while working as a newspaper photographer. I still use the 24mm as my 'normal' lens on Nikon's and am on my second one at this time.-Dick

 

[bl1nd]

I was wondering if anyone had tried any of these zenit lenses?
http://www.zenit-camera.com/nikon_cameras_lenses.htm
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/nikon_cameras_lenses.htm

 

[jp498]

rugift's prices seem quite high... I have the voigtlander 40 slII lens. I wouldn't call it wide, but more normal. It's a superb lens in terms of construction and image quality. I bought it from B&H or amazon/adorama. I bought it instead of a nikon pancake lens because I wanted the extra stop of light. The lens is also chipped so the right focal length shows up in my dslr files when it's used with that.

I also have the 1000/8 mirror lens and paid far less than half of what they asked at rugift 4-5 years ago. It's not worth a lot. It has to be used with a teleconverter because the barrel hits the prism of most cameras. I use it occasionally for checking microwave paths for line-of-sight as sort of a telescope that lets me take photos. You need a tripod and dark cloth to use it, and it's not something most people would have a use for. A decent 300/2.8 can do almost as much detail as the mirror lens + teleconverter, despite less magnification, due to differences in optical quality.