just got into some more dramatic shots with ultrawides and flash for the portrait part of the wedding day. I have experimented with the VC 15mm on the M9. The problem is the parallax effect, so I would like to have something for my Nikon.
I have not soo much to spend and I want a small lens. Do you have any suggestions?
have looked so far into:
Zeiss (way too expensive)
Nikon 20mm D (reputation of bad color fringing, as I use Aperture that may cause a problem)
Nikon 20/3.5 AIS (shall be a fantastic lens to shoot into the sun)
Samyang 14mm (that could be something...)
Hey, heiko, I see you're still featured at the top.
As far as a lens ... I shot a wedding with the Nikon 20mm 2.8 [D, I think] and it worked fine. Plenty sharp. I didn't sit and pixel-peep it but no issues that I noticed. Focused quick and accurate. Shot some outside daytime shots with it. Indoors, too.
I don't use ultrawide often, so I wanted something small and moderately priced. I've been very pleased with the 20mm f2.8D. the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm is great as well, but is much larger, and that 6mm difference makes it reaaaaally wide.
found a very old damaged crap 20/3.5 AI in my old camera stuff. Tried it today and feel that it is not wide enough. I like the dramatic look from above (15mm).
I think I will try out the Samyang 14mm, even if itīs big. But it is cheap.
pftomo wrote:
Nikon 28mm 1.8. Cheap, sharp, quick focusing, small and light. About $700 on Amazon, I got mine for $600 with Nikon instant rebate last month.
have the Nikon 28, love it.
But, you know, wiiiiide (0:
I used the sigma ex 17-35mm 2.8-4, wide and cheap and light. Traded in for the tokina 17-35mm 4, much better build quality, sharp all around, better focus.
I'm in kind of the same dilemma- I'm considering either the Tokina 16-28, Nikkor 14-24mm or 16-35mm.
Besides cost, another bad thing about the 14-24mm is that you can't put a CP filter on. Yeah, I know, sometimes that can make a sky look unevenly blue. But a lot of scenes which deserve UWA glass (large body of water/other shiny background or country green pastoral scene) benefit from being polarized.
You may also want to consider a used 17-35mm. New, it sells for $1,700+. But if it has a "squeak" when it focuses after sitting unused for a while, then the owner will likely think it's about to imminently die and want to part with it for $900-ish. Sort of the same syndrome as "That camera body has over _ _k shutter actuations- it could explode at any moment!" But when I had one, I felt like not having the Nano coating of the G series made enough of a difference to me that I sold mine.
The Nikon 16-35mm might fit what you're looking for- but some people are bothered by its supposed tendency to curve architecture. Never owned one, that's just what I read.
