Best Wide Angle lens (landscape) for my Nikon D7100

[rtbaum]

Kathy, I would like to recommend a site that I frequently checkout, https://photographylife.com/, I have found his reviews of lenses to be pretty good. He is quite partial to Sigma and Nikon.

You may be a bit like me, I find that a nice prime allows me to explore new vistas. I'm not at all against the zooms...heck...I even own one, sometimes I use it. If you are willing to stretch the budget, I recommend any of the Sigma Art lenses. I am also impressed with Nikon f/1.8 lenses.

Is there a 12-step program for NAS?

[Kathy O]

Kathy, I would like to recommend a site that I frequently checkout, https://photographylife.com/, I have found his reviews of lenses to be pretty good. He is quite partial to Sigma and Nikon.

You may be a bit like me, I find that a nice prime allows me to explore new vistas. I'm not at all against the zooms...heck...I even own one, sometimes I use it. If you are willing to stretch the budget, I recommend any of the Sigma Art lenses. I am also impressed with Nikon f/1.8 lenses.

Is there a 12-step program for NAS?

Thank you for the link, I will make sure I check it out. I sure do love the vividness and sharpness of my 35mm prime lens, I can tell a difference between my kit 18-55mm lens and my 35mm prime lens. I can get good photos with my 18-55mm but there is something about the 35mm that makes the photos pop more . . . maybe coincidence or maybe it's the lens . . . I really don't know.

[Manfred M]

I understand, Manfred. I've made tack sharp 20" x 30" images captured with a D80 and prosumer lenses. But sharpness is not the only quality of a lens. Moreover, if a better quality lens becomes apparent to Kathy for whatever reason, she might be motivated more than ever to continue improving all aspects of her photography.

One does not need to perfect all of one's photography skills to benefit from a better quality lens; improving the skills and the hardware can coincide.

I hear you Mike, but the problem is that it really is a pretty decent lens from an optical standpoint. Mechanically, it is not particularly robuts (it's the only lens I've actually manage to break), but it was so inexpensive, I replaced it.

My wife has the 18-200mm Nikkor and I have the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. Her lens is considerably more expensive than both of my lenses put together, yet my images are a touch sharper. This is not necessarily surprising given the number of optical components in her lens and the long optical range. The 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor runs for around 1/3 the cost of the f/1.4 Nikkor and is sharper certainly at the larger apertures.

[Manfred M]

Kathy - as a general "rule" fixed focus length lenses are sharper than zoom lenses. My sharpest lens is my Nikkor f/2 105mm DC lens, and it cost less than half of my other portrait lens, the f/2.8 70-200mm.

[Kathy O]

Mike I've done tack sharp 17" x 22" prints with that lens with images from the D90.

I have a question . . . if you were shooting tack sharp 17" x 22" prints with the 18-55mm lens with your D90, then why did you feel the need to upgrade? Was it to shoot larger photos? I am just curious.

[rtbaum]

I should also reiterate the suggestion that you look at the Tamron 17-50, I went for the non VR version.

[Manfred M]

I have a question . . . if you were shooting tack sharp 17" x 22" prints with the 18-55mm lens with your D90, then why did you feel the need to upgrade? Was it to shoot larger photos? I am just curious.

There are tons of reasons I wanted a "pro level camera", full-frame camera. I have been shooting film SLRs for decades and prefer the format. First and foremost I get one stop shallower depth of field out of a full-frame camera. I have always found the small viewfinder in a crop frame camera marginal. Certain lenses like my Nikkor f/3.5 24mm PC-E lens don't fit on the smaller crop frame bodies.

Some of the features are important to the type of shooting that I do; the ability to use buttons of the camera body, rather than having to scroll through a menu to change settings, the higher pixel count (36MP on the D800 vs 12 on the D90), better low light performance.

The list goes on and on.

[rpcrowe]

Kathy asked, "Do you all still shoot with your 18 - 55mm lens kit??"

I have never owned an 18-55mm kit lens. I started with a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 as my first lens and replaced it with a 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS. I have been shooting with that combination for five or six years now!

I also think that my 12-24mm f/4 Tokina Mark I produces images that really POP!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Kathy,

I sure do love the vividness and sharpness of my 35mm prime lens, I can tell a difference between my kit 18-55mm lens and my 35mm prime lens. I can get good photos with my 18-55mm but there is something about the 35mm that makes the photos pop more . . . maybe coincidence or maybe it's the lens . . . I really don't know.

As Manfred says, this is to be expected of any prime lens compared to a zoom, there are (typically) far more lens elements inside a zoom lens and these all introduce some problems, reducing vividness and sharpness. They are there to maintain 'acceptable' quality over the focal length range offered by the lens, this is why Mike's experience with the kit 18-55mm vs the 18-200mm (which I have) shows better images from the kit lens with less zoom range.

While these things are noticeable during processing, they need not necessarily impact the final image quality if suitable compensating post processing is done - and from what we've seen, you are quite good at that and you certainly have an eye for a good composition.

FWIW, when I moved from a Sigma zoom to a Nikon, I noticed that the Nikon required less boost to the clarity/vibrance (to achieve the desired result). The Nikon was more expensive and a slightly shorter zoom range. I don't even bother to compare my primes (e.g. 50mm and 35mm) against the 18-200mm because I know what the result will be. I just use what I have available on the day - and I usually only fit the primes if I need their wider aperture. Sometimes I hanker after a faster short zoom such as something like a 17-50 at f/2.8, but for what you shoot; typically at f/8, it may not be much benefit.

Cheers, Dave

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy,



As Manfred says, this is to be expected of any prime lens compared to a zoom, there are (typically) far more lens elements inside a zoom lens and these all introduce some problems, reducing vividness and sharpness. They are there to maintain 'acceptable' quality over the focal length range offered by the lens, this is why Mike's experience with the kit 18-55mm vs the 18-200mm (which I have) shows better images from the kit lens with less zoom range.

While these things are noticeable during processing, they need not necessarily impact the final image quality if suitable compensating post processing is done - and from what we've seen, you are quite good at that and you certainly have an eye for a good composition.

FWIW, when I moved from a Sigma zoom to a Nikon, I noticed that the Nikon required less boost to the clarity/vibrance (to achieve the desired result). The Nikon was more expensive and a slightly shorter zoom range. I don't even bother to compare my primes (e.g. 50mm and 35mm) against the 18-200mm because I know what the result will be. I just use what I have available on the day - and I usually only fit the primes if I need their wider aperture. Sometimes I hanker after a faster short zoom such as something like a 17-50 at f/2.8, but for what you shoot; typically at f/8, it may not be much benefit.

Cheers, Dave

Thank you for the helpful information.

[jcuknz]

A key point in Dave's post to my way of thinking is ...
"While these things are noticeable during processing, they need not necessarily impact the final image quality if suitable compensating post processing is done. "

Early on I realized that the camera and editor are companion tools in the digital age, and nothing I have seen since changes that view. SOOC folk are simply harking back to when Kodak et al did much of the work for them in making the emulsion and doing the processing. But even in those days there were good photographers doing the extra yard.

[dje]

I sure do love the vividness and sharpness of my 35mm prime lens, I can tell a difference between my kit 18-55mm lens and my 35mm prime lens. I can get good photos with my 18-55mm but there is something about the 35mm that makes the photos pop more . . . maybe coincidence or maybe it's the lens . . . I really don't know.

Kathy I can vouch for the same experience with my 50mm prime vs my 24-85 zoom. The prime is certainly sharper but I believe there is another factor that enters into the equation - contrast preservation. By contrast I am not referring to the term "micro contrast" that some people use to describe sharpness but the basic preservation of the white to black ratio in an image. This is affected by a thing (rather obscurely) called "veiling flare" which involves stray reflections off the surfaces of the elements in a lens resulting in stray light hitting the sensor. This effect is minimised by anrti-reflective coatings on the lens elements. The lower the quality of these coatings the more flare there will be. Also the more elements there are in a lens, the more likely it is that there will be more flare. The prime will generally win out over the kit zoom in both departments.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

SOOC folk are simply harking back to when Kodak et al did much of the work for them in making the emulsion and doing the processing. But even in those days there were good photographers doing the extra yard.

Everything I read at the time was that almost all magazines required photographers to submit color slides. There was no extra yard for those photographers in that situation.

[purplehaze]

Hi Kathy,

I shoot a D7100 and was also looking for something better than the 18-105 mm kit lens that came with my D90, both of which are now in the hands of my niece. I bought full frame to cover the long end and beyond and was going to do the same for the wide, until I read about the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 ART lens, designed for crop sensors. Twice your budget, I'm afraid, but half the cost of the full-frame Nikon I was considering, and I have to say I love, love, love it. It is very well reviewed and I have found it a delight to use. It is very sharp corner to corner, conserves the 1.8 focal length throughout the range, has nice heft and feels very solid and well-made. It has been on the market long enough that there are used copies available, so if there is any chance you can stretch your budget, I am pretty confident it would not disappoint you. Apologies if this is not useful to you, given the cost consideration, but there may be others who might be interested in the endorsement, not to mention the fact that it is by far DXOMark's highest rated standard zoom for the D7100 (see here).

Edit: I should also add my endorsement of the very inexpensive Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 prime. It was my second lens and has never disappointed me.

And the Sigma has very nearly made my Nikkor 35 mm redundant. I have not let it go in case I might want to use it for panoramas, but the fact is, I have not used it since I got the Sigma.

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy,

I shoot a D7100 and was also looking for something better than the 18-105 mm kit lens that came with my D90, both of which are now in the hands of my niece. I bought full frame to cover the long end and beyond and was going to do the same for the wide, until I read about the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 ART lens, designed for crop sensors. Twice your budget, I'm afraid, but half the cost of the full-frame Nikon I was considering, and I have to say I love, love, love it. It is very well reviewed and I have found it a delight to use. It is very sharp corner to corner, conserves the 1.8 focal length throughout the range, has nice heft and feels very solid and well-made. It has been on the market long enough that there are used copies available, so if there is any chance you can stretch your budget, I am pretty confident it would not disappoint you. Apologies if this is not useful to you, given the cost consideration, but there may be others who might be interested in the endorsement, not to mention the fact that it is by far DXOMark's highest rated standard zoom for the D7100 (see here).

Edit: I should also add my endorsement of the very inexpensive Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 prime. It was my second lens and has never disappointed me.

And the Sigma has very nearly made my Nikkor 35 mm redundant. I have not let it go in case I might want to use it for panoramas, but the fact is, I have not used it since I got the Sigma.

Thank you Janis, your post was very helpful!!

[Shadowman]

No word on price yet but a new offering from Nikon.

http://camerarumors.info/nikon-annou...5-5-6g-lenses/

[jcuknz]

I have a question . . . if you were shooting tack sharp 17" x 22" prints with the 18-55mm lens with your D90, then why did you feel the need to upgrade? Was it to shoot larger photos? I am just curious.

Quite possibly he was suffering from the "what lens can I next buy because I have an ILC" sickness.

[jcuknz]

Everything I read at the time was that almost all magazines required photographers to submit color slides. There was no extra yard for those photographers in that situation.

Magazines are not the be-all and end-all ... there are things like photo competitions at both local and international level and I have seen in retrospective exhibition the work of one of our local photographers of international repute.

[Manfred M]

Quite possibly he was suffering from the "what lens can I next buy because I have an ILC" sickness.

Nope - it seems to me I answered the question.

There are tons of reasons I wanted a "pro level camera", full-frame camera. I have been shooting film SLRs for decades and prefer the format. First and foremost I get one stop shallower depth of field out of a full-frame camera. I have always found the small viewfinder in a crop frame camera marginal. Certain lenses like my Nikkor f/3.5 24mm PC-E lens don't fit on the smaller crop frame bodies.

Some of the features are important to the type of shooting that I do; the ability to use buttons of the camera body, rather than having to scroll through a menu to change settings, the higher pixel count (36MP on the D800 vs 12 on the D90), better low light performance.

The list goes on and on.

[jcuknz]

LOL Manfred #79 ... your reasons are quite similar to why I have the GH after starting MFT with a G ... I like the knobs
Though the restricted DoF is a bad point not a plus in moving from bridge to MFT because when it is needed I know I can put parts of the shot OOF in editing, in a controlled way not the hit or miss of in-camera.[ or perhaps "that is what I'll want" of in-camera choices ]

Similar desires but with different attitudes ...