Wide Angle F mount on a budget...

[mjk]

I love my Nikon FG and have the normal and mild telephoto range pretty well covered with a 50/1.8 and the famous 75-150/3.5E and 70-210/4E zooms, but as I become more interested in landscapes, I've entered the market for wide-angle lenses... My question is, what decent wide lenses are there for someone who can't really spend more than $100-$150... I've got a 28/2.8E already, but if something better is available at a decent price, I'd love to know.

 

[Mick Fagan]

You could try the Sigma Super - Wide II f2.8 24mm.

I bought mine new in 1985, it comes with a scalloped lens hood.

Uses a 52mm filter ring.

It isn't as good as the Nikkor(s) but the price was what I could afford. Used ones in this country go for about $50 - $100 AUD.

Where in the world are you?

Mick.

 

[mjk]

I'll have to keep a look out for the Sigma, then...
I'm in the US...

 

[Jeff L]

Anything by Tamron, Kiron, Vivtar Series 1, or Tokina as well as Sigma will be decent. 24 or 28mm it's up you and your vision.

 

[Poohblah]

The Nikkor 20/3.5 is wonderful, but I doubt you could find it that cheap.

 

[PhotoJim]

In your budget, with reasonable quality, 24mm is as wide as you can go.

The 28/2.8E isn't Nikon's best wide angle lens but it is competent. Since you already own it, why not shoot with it and see how you like it?

I think 28 is a good wide angle lens for learning purposes. A 24 is more difficult to use well. The effect can be much more dramatic, but it has to be used with care.

I recommend you use the 28 for a year or two and see how things go. If you want a wider lens by then, you'll likely know how to use a wide angle well enough to get your money's worth out of a 24.

 

[mudman]

I advise you to work with what you have. And don't discount the telezooms for your landscapes - The compression @ 100-200mm is really nice.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

If you already have a 28mm, then go for a 20mm (a 24mm isn't that much of a difference).

I briefly used an Arsat (Ukrainian) 20mm which I found quite good (better than a Mir, a Russian 20mm). These should be quite cheap (if you find one).
Usual caveats for Soviet/Russian/Ukranian quality control....

 

[Ian Grant]

The 17mm Tamron SP is great wide-angle, they should be around your budget. As you've already got a 28mm go a little wider.

Ian

 

[Mick Fagan]

I had a Tamron 17mm, don't know whether it was an SP version, if SP means anything that is, but it wasn't that flash, so I onsold it to a student who thought it was marvelous. One man's rubbish..........

Another lens if you are going to go wide, is the Sigma 18mm f3.5. It does not have a filter mount, but one can be fitted by a reasonably proficient camera technician.

I have one of these fitted with a 72mm filter thread, works a treat. Not as good as the Nikkor 18mm of the same size and speed, but literally 1/8 to 1/4 of the price of a Nikkor.

The best thing about this era of Sigma lenses is that they are made of metal, therefore are quite strong, plus they focus the same way as Nikon and Nikkor lenses, which to me is a very big plus.

In the mid eighties through to the mid to late nineties, Sigma Nikon mount lenses, were one of the better after-market brands of prime lenses around. The Vivitar Series 1 were optically about the same, but their focusing direction I don't believe was the same as Nikon and Nikkor lenses, this could be an issue with you.

Mick.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Another lens which has excellent characteristics is the Vivitar (aka Tokina) 17mm 3.5

Tests regularly rate it very highly (much better than the Tamron 17).

While I don|t especially like it|s signature (yes, I am finnicky), it does very well as far as sharpness, lowish distortion and all that is concerned.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Tamron SP series of lenses were the company's answer to the Vivitar Series 1's, I have two or three SP lenses and they are all excellent. Both the 17mm's have been very good indeed, the first was stolen.
to the best Nikon equivalent back in the 80's.

Ian

 

[mjk]

The only problem with the Tamrons seems to be that they require a special adapter... Still, some of the SP lenses (including the 17mm you mention) do look very nice. I'll have to see what kind of cash resources come my way as a result of Christmas...

 

[Nigel]

I love my Nikon FG and have the normal and mild telephoto range pretty well covered with a 50/1.8 and the famous 75-150/3.5E and 70-210/4E zooms, but as I become more interested in landscapes, I've entered the market for wide-angle lenses... My question is, what decent wide lenses are there for someone who can't really spend more than $100-$150... I've got a 28/2.8E already, but if something better is available at a decent price, I'd love to know.

I have the 28/2.8E and don;t like the look of it (or more precisely, pictures taken with it). I don;t know if it is distortion or just personal taste. I have the 35mm/2.5E and find it to be very good. I see little distrotion and it is just the bit wider than 50mm that I like. It is also very affordable; I found mine used for $50 CDN in great shape.

 

[Jerry Thirsty]

It's a bit out of your stated price range, but the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 SP is a very good lens. I see a couple listed on the 'bay for $210; dunno whether you'll find it any cheaper than that. It has a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, but I don't find it objectionable. I put a sample here if you want to see:

http://www.pbase.com/jthirsty/image/107102029

 

[juanito]

I have de Sigma 20mm f1,8 and it is a very nice lens.

 

[Poohblah]

After reading the thread through, I'm thinking you need to get some mileage on that 28 you have there and then search for a new lens if need be. All the lenses that everybody's suggesting are all very different and serve different purposes. It's up to you to find out exactly what you need in a lens.

 

[Karl K]

Tamron made a 28mm f/2.5 in the Adapt-All Series, which can fit almost any SLR with the proper adapter. Well made, crisp, and a great color lens with good speed. They can be found at very cheap prices if you look and are patient.

 

[2F/2F]

Find a lens that was originally made before the introduction of AI, but has been converted to use on AI bodies. The NAI glass is cheap enough as it is, and is made even cheaper if it has been AId.

 

[mudman]

Tamron made a 28mm f/2.5 in the Adapt-All Series, which can fit almost any SLR with the proper adapter. Well made, crisp, and a great color lens with good speed. They can be found at very cheap prices if you look and are patient.

I'd recommend the 24 over the 28. The 28 is good, but the 24 is excellent.

 

[mjk]

After reading the thread through, I'm thinking you need to get some mileage on that 28 you have there and then search for a new lens if need be. All the lenses that everybody's suggesting are all very different and serve different purposes. It's up to you to find out exactly what you need in a lens.

The more I read, the more I come to that conclusion myself...

 

[Joe Grodis]

I picked up a very nice (Used) Sigma 17mm - 35mm zoom w/82mm filter ring & hood on KEH for a mere $175

 

[Doug Webb]

Sigma made an 18-35mm zoom in Nikon mount that would probably be very affordable now. I had one that worked very well and never disappointed me. I traded it for a medium format lens because I wasn't using 35mm as much at the time. I believe it was a 3.5-5.6 or 4.5-5.6 lens. There was an article in a past issue of Shutterbug written by Moose Peterson about this lens. Sounded like he liked the lens as much as I did.
Good luck,
Doug Webb

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Tamron's " Special Adapters ".

The only problem with the Tamrons seems to be that they require a special adapter... Still, some of the SP lenses (including the 17mm you mention) do look very nice. I'll have to see what kind of cash resources come my way as a result of Christmas...

That " special adapter ", the Adaptall II mount, allows you to use the same lens, with anything form Pentax Spotmatics & Spotmatic F's, to Pentax K, Canon FD, Nikon F, Minolta MD, even Leica R & Rollei 2000F & 3000F cameras.
The Canon EF & Minolta AF, adapters are dead, ( no electrical connection & no linkage ).

The " special adapters " are designed to keep as many features of the host body as possible.
It seems like a pretty good feature to me. A Great feat of engineering.