p.2 #1 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
ahinesdesign wrote:
You are correct about Z lenses not being backwards compatible. While not all F-mount ultrawides hold up to current standards, many are more than sufficient to create great images.
I was attempting to tell everyone that suggested mirrorless was the answer that such recommendations were off topic in this thread, but perhaps my diplomacy muddied the response too much…
It was early and I wasn't sure I was reading your response correctly. Thanks for clarifying. Photography boards are dangerous places for your financial health, and I always find it interesting that photography is no different then many other hobbies with regards to a bunch of enablers wanting you to get the latest and greatest too. haha
Lorryist wrote:
For ultra cheap look at the Tamron/Tokina/Quantaray 19-35mm.
Thanks. I appreciate good quality and have always struggled with cheap feeling gear, regardless. Fine wine tastes on a beer budget?
sungphoto wrote:
I still think the 18-35G is hard to beat. I am 99% sure I took this with it, at 20mm
I will need to give this lens serious consideration.
Keith B. wrote:
I got a lot of good shots of general stuff with my 20-year-old 17-35/2.8 over the F-mount years. Even though the AF motor failed twice and it's not a lens for ultra hi-res landscape work, it would be a lot of fun for someone who wanted to fool around with wide angle shots. I haven't used the AF-S 18-35/4.5, but from its reputation it seems like it would be another good option.
From what I understand the 20-35 is optically very similar, but is AF-D so there is no motor to break. Hmmm
p.2 #3 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
jonshonda wrote:
Sounds like the 18-35 is a good little brother for the 14-24. Something you throw in the bag when you wanna hit the road and travel light?
It's such a good option. It's not tiny, but it feels practically empty so it handles great on any size of camera or in a pack. It's been nice in that it can be my main 35 for the day, so I'm a lot more content to leave a 24-70 at home and instead bring a longer option like a 70-200, 75-150 Series E, 35-200 Ai-S, etc.
So yeah, big fan of the 18-35's utility. Plus I'm just not a big 14-16mm guy, so the samples and reviews of the 18-35 made it an easy decision to pick one up.
p.2 #4 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
OffTrail wrote:
It's such a good option. It's not tiny, but it feels practically empty so it handles great on any size of camera or in a pack. It's been nice in that it can be my main 35 for the day, so I'm a lot more content to leave a 24-70 at home and instead bring a longer option like a 70-200, 75-150 Series E, 35-200 Ai-S, etc.
What's really interesting is that I was having very similar thoughts on a hike with the dogs yesterday with the 24-70 2.8. I just really don't know that I like that focal range all that much for my interests at this point. I just got back into photography after 15 years off and am still navigating my way through the NAS, trying to understand what I might actually be interested in.
I've found that when I'm going on hikes I don't have a wide angle lens point of view if that makes sense. I'm concentrating/focusing more on smaller things that are best captured with lenses over the 85mm range. I'm in Wisconsin and we have a very distinct 4 seasons, so that may very well change this winter as our scenery very much changes. But I'm not sure.
My thought was similar to yours, have something smaller and wide like the 18-35 (or if I got really crazy a Zeiss 35/2) and the 70-200 2.8. Right now I'm really starting to gravitate towards the higher end of the focal lengths.
