Wide Zooms For Nikon?

[Spleenrippa]

Some of you may have seen my recent 'F5 Lust' thread. I did indeed acquire one of those beasts and now I am on the hunt for a decent wide angle zoom for 35mm/FX.

I'd love to shoot with something like a 10-20, but all the third party (new) glass seems to be for cropped sensors, and new FX lenses from Nikon cost as much as the Malibu I drive when the Miata is put away for the winter 😛

Can anyone suggest an older wide angle zoom that won't break the bank? AF, if possible.

 

[rxmd]

A 10-20 on FX is simply nonexistent.
The closest you get for full frame is the Sigma 12-24/f4.5-5.6, which is so-so, but very, very wide, and sells for $900.

Starting from 14-something or 16-something you start to get something like choice. What are the focal lengths you are actually interested in? And what do you consider "breaking the bank"?

 

[MaxElmar]

The Nikkor AF 18-35/3.5-4.5 is about as good as you are going to do. Mind you, "Cheap, wide, and good" don't normally go together.Try $365 USD for a decent example of the aforementioned. The 20-35/2.8 is nice for about twice the price. "Cheap, wide, good, and fast" never go together. I'm assuming you're using these on film. These aren't the greatest lenses for digital. (Lots of CA, not outstanding sharpness)

And if you are used to RF wides, you will be disappointed with SLR wides, especially inexpensive zooms of any kind.

 

[The Dark]

Why not the AF Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-4.5D. I use one on my D700 and film as well. Not as sharp as the 14-24 but at that price Im not complaining. Plus it have an aperture ring for older manual film cameras. Since it is already discontinued, I will be a bit harder to come by.

 

[L. M. Tu]

If you wish for something nearly equivalent to a 10-20mm DX zoom, that's simply not available at a decent price. Even a used 14mm prime lens goes for nearly $1,000. How wide are you trying to go? The old 25-50mm F4 zoom covers a very useful range and can be had for $200-250. Manual focus, of course. I don't know how it would do with a sensor behind it but, since you're using it on an F5, that is irrelevant.

 

[Spleenrippa]

Thanks for the replies, guys.
I realize that an ultra wide isn't really feasible on a budget, no matter the sensor format.
I should have clarified earlier- I'm mostly looking for a walk around zoom lens to fit "under" the 28 and 35 primes I already have, although a little overlap is perfectly fine. I can spare a few hundred, so I don't expect any kind of brilliant performance IQ-wise. This is mostly for fun until I save for something really nice.

 

[italy74]

Ciao
Not to break the bank AND remaining AF you should go for some Sigma 15-30, 20-40 or those multibrand (Cosina, Vivitar, Soligor etc) 19-35 or a 21-35 which are all FX, yet don't look for quality, I mean, you get what you pay for. Both Signa and Tamron did also a 17-35 F/2.8-4 FX, more recently.
Among MF, I'd go for sure for the 25-50 F/4 (here I know where to get one at a low price yet I dont know if they sell overseas)
In case you would be interested in the 25-50, here's the link to the site (I'm not related with them, of course) - the fact it's listed among AF lenses is a typo I guess
http://www.tuttofoto.com/Catalogo.abl?cmd=md&id_marca=0&flg_stockOfferte=SU&id_articolo=9940228

 

[btgc]

The old 25-50mm F4 zoom covers a very useful range and can be had for $200-250. Manual focus, of course.

Is Nikon's make so brilliant? I use K-mount Tokina 25-50/4 which costs ~5-10 times less (depends on Moon phase, of course) and no, it's not a crappy lens. It's made also in Nikon mount, AFAIK.

 

[Rob-F]

I solve it this way. I use either my 15/3.5 Nikkor or my 18/4 Nikkor as my only lenses wider than 20mm. Then I pick up with my 20-35mm Tokina when I want a wide zoom. Used to have a 20-35/2.8 Nikkor, but it was too heavy on the camera.

Of the 15 and 18 Nikkors, my 15 is the better lens, as there is no distortion.

 

[richardhkirkando]

I have one of those Cosina 19-35 AF zooms. Its not very sharp until you get down to f/8, and the distortion is hilariously bad. But it was $60 brand new, so for a "fun" lens its hard to go wrong.

 

[yossarian123]

in order of price and also in order of overall awesomeness (I've owned all three):

18-35 (great underappreciated lens, $250-350), 20-35mm 2.8 ($500-550), 17-35 2.8 (my current WA zoom, also my most used lens).

 

[Nikon Bob]

There is also the Tamron 20-40 f2.7-3.5 AFD which was very good on my F90x. I would think you can find one for a couple hundred dollars or so now.

Bob

 

[Spleenrippa]

Well, I just pulled the trigger on a Tokina AF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (vers II)
Perhaps not the greatest lens, but it comes close to what I'm looking for and it is (according to reviews) quite a hefty thing with it's all-metal construction. It has to come from the 'States, so fingers crossed 🙂

 

[chrishayton]

I had the 18-35 nikkor which was ok and now have the 15-30 Sigma which I highly recommend if you aren't bothered about filters. Its pretty good in the corners and is extremely cheap used for some reason