Wide angle lens for D300

[Sassie]

I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my Nikon D300 and I'm not sure what to go for. The 17-55mm is the obvious choice. Basically I'm keen to get something that is great quality. I'm used to a fast lens for low light so wouldn't be sure about the 12-24 f/4. I also want the option to use filters - polarizer etc.

I'm new to Nikon so would appreciate some input from other users as to whether you think the 17-55mm churns good quality results, and any other lens I should consider.

Thanks, Sas

[ap4a]

17mm isn't very wide on an APS-C camera like yours, but most of the options for getting wider aren't as fast so you'd need to compromise on either aperture or width. What do you want to use the lens for primarily?

[Sassie]

I have come over from Canon and used the Canon 17-55mm which I was happy with. Used for landscape and wide angle scenery shots. The Nikon 17-55mm equivalent doesn't seem to get as good reviews as the Canon so I'm wondering what else is out there that others would recommend. I'd even go for a prime if there was one suitable. I'm in Scotland so often have to contend with low light and that why I like the f/2.8. Depth of field is important for distant objects. I'll probably have to trade off image stabilisation which the Canon had.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Sassie

I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my Nikon D300 and I'm not sure what to go for. The 17-55mm is the obvious choice. Basically I'm keen to get something that is great quality. I'm used to a fast lens for low light so wouldn't be sure about the 12-24 f/4. I also want the option to use filters - polarizer etc.

I'm new to Nikon so would appreciate some input from other users as to whether you think the 17-55mm churns good quality results, and any other lens I should consider.

Thanks, Sas

I've got the Nikon 12-24mm F4 and it's a cracking lens and have used for many misty dawn shots in low light, hand-held without problems, but it may be a bit dear. You could consider the Sigma 10-20mm at about £400 and it's F4-5.6. Lots of people swear by it but haven't used myself.

[ap4a]

Originally Posted by Sassie

Used for landscape and wide angle scenery shots.

I think a sturdy tripod would likely server you better for that purpose than an extra stop. The Sigma 10-20 mentioned by Old Boy is a great lens (I own it and love it) for landscapes. For the cost of the 17-55m you could get a Sigma 10-20, tripod, ball head and remote release with a bit of money left over, all of which would help you more (all assuming you don't have them already). If you need a faster version than the f4-5.6 then Sigma have also brought out a new version with a constant f/3.5 maximum aperture.

The 17-55 on a crop body tends to be considered more of a general purpose zoom than a specialised landscape/scenery lens. However that does depend on your own style and preferences. Another alternative to that is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro which costs a bit less than the 10-20.

[Eileen]

Sassie,

I use the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (mentioned by ap4a) on my D300. I find it an excellent standard zoom. Optically it is of very high quality - extremely sharp and with good contrast and colour. It has a very good autofocus, which will work well in the low light conditions you mention and also if you wish to track moving subjects. It is well built and will take some knocks but not excessively heavy or unbalanced. The Nikon is of course pretty good on those fronts also: to inform your thinking I've summarised some of the key differences between the two lenses.

The Sigma is a good deal cheaper than the Nikon and would leave money in your budget for landscape filters or a tripod. Although it is very well-built the Nikon is even more substantial. With the Nikon you can change from auto to manual focus by moving the focus ring but with the Sigma you need to push a switch at the side of the lens to change from auto to manual. I am fairly sure that if you move to full frame at some time in the future you could use the Nikon for part of its range - say from 30-55mm, whereas the Sigma is unusable on full frame except in crop mode. If this last point is important please check the details to confirm - I am fairly sure about this but not 100% and wouldn't want to mislead you.

The Sigma lens has a useful close-focussing feature which allow 1:3 reproduction - useful for shots of flowers and small details in the landscape. I don't know how close the Nikon will focus.


Eileen

[OldBoy]

Checking the price of the Nikon 17-55mm at £900 I would stretch my budget and get the Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 and you won't need to buy another if you go full frame in the future. It's one of the best ultra wide angle lenses around, and I love mine.

The Sigma 10-20mm is the wide angle lens of choice. It has come top on in every review in every mag available as either best lens or best value lens.

I believe they have also now brought out an updated model

Hope this helps

rgds
Dave

[ozzy38]

Have you consider the tokina 12-24 ATX lens? highly underated piece of glass.....i use this lens with my D300 and i cannot fault it!

jay

[ian_w]

I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. A relative bargain compared to the Nikon 17-55mm