# Need a wide-angle lens for my Nikon D80



## Loxley (Jan 28, 2009)

Hey guys,

I have a Nikon D80, and I'm studying photojournalism. I'd like a wide angle lens for my camera, something with a decently low F stop and something that can also be decent for macro photography as well. I'm looking for cheap, but I'll pay whatever is necessary for decent quality. Can anyone help me out please?


----------



## kundalini (Jan 28, 2009)

You'll not get macro from a wide angle to the best of my knowledge...... a telephoto, yes.

Define _"I'm looking for cheap, but I'll pay whatever is necessary for decent quality."  _A dollar amount (or your currency) would be helpful.


----------



## Loxley (Jan 28, 2009)

kundalini said:


> You'll not get macro from a wide angle to the best of my knowledge...... a telephoto, yes.
> 
> Define _"I'm looking for cheap, but I'll pay whatever is necessary for decent quality."  _A dollar amount (or your currency) would be helpful.



I'm not really sure how much I'm willing to spend.. I've never bought a lens separately before, so right now, I'm trying to get a general idea of what's out there. I'm a student, so all I can say is cheaper is better, but if it's going to be a crappy lens, then I'd stay away from it.

I did a little more research on macro, you're right about the lens, never mind about that. I still do need a wide angle lens.


----------



## bdavis (Jan 28, 2009)

Popular choices are the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16, Nikon 12-24. All of these would be a good choice.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 28, 2009)

My wide angle choice was the *Nikkor 12-24mm*.  A lot of people are happy with the *Sigma 10-20mm* but has a variable aperture.  Another option I think is getting attention is the *Tokina 11-16mm*.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jan 28, 2009)

I love my sigma 10-20!


----------



## jeffie7 (Jan 28, 2009)

I just got my Tokina yesterday (canon) and have had a blast shooting it. I can't wait to get outdoors with it, so far I've been stuck doing interior shoots and a bunch of the cats, its cool being able to get a few inches away from a cat and still manage to get their whole body in the shot. 

When I get around to putting some good picture time into it, taking worth while pictures rather then trying to freak out the cats, I can get a better review, The main reason I went with the Tokina over the Sigma was the 2.8F I plan on doing a lot of indoor interior shoots.







No editing, just a straight up shot, it was shot at either 100ISO or 200ISO. on an XSi/450D body.


----------



## invisible (Feb 2, 2009)

I tried both the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 11-16. Kept the Tokina and I'm having a blast with it. It's much faster (2.8 vs. 4-5.6), much better built (just hold both in your hands to tell the difference) and maybe a tiny bit sharper. The advantage of the Sigma is the range, plus the difference between 10 and 11 is huge (10% wider). The AF of my copy of the Sigma hunted like there was no tomorrow, while the Tokina's is very quick and accurate.


----------



## shivaswrath (Mar 8, 2009)

NOT to bring this back from the dead, but I hate starting new threads when one's already exist.

I am still looking for a descent wide angle.  I have used the following:
Nikon 12-24 f/4 - the version i got was icky soft, had poor color contrast, and was just frustrating; and only works Dx.
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 - f'in price went up from $1469 to $1649; while I can kinda justify it, sorta, it's too much to swallow right now, combined with the excessive weight, the attention it gets when used in public, and exposed front.

And have largely stayed away from the Sigma line simply because people ***** about their focusing issues, etc.

However, I was at a friend's wedding the other weekend and buddying up with the photographer (obviously, since I was shooting too for fun!) and got a hold of his Canon 5D mounted with the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6

WOAH - WIDE AS ALL HELL!!!! Wider than the Nikon 14-24!!!

And this Sigma 12-24 apparently only retails for $699 (significantly cheaper than the above examples I have used).

So what's the catch, what are your impressions, etc? Softness, focusing issues, build issues, etc?

P.S. I have considered the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 (and even the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5), but what has effectively eliminated them from consideration: I can't use it on my N75 AND dSLR.

P.P.S. I recognize it won't AF on my D40x, which is fine with me, since I'll be purchasing a D90 in the near future (or a D200/D300, lol, start that debate again?!)


----------



## adamwilliamking (Mar 8, 2009)

What about a fisheye? Nikkor 10.5 DX - 799 CDN dollars


----------



## Lunchbox (Mar 8, 2009)

tokina 11-16 2.8 is great...i love mine


----------



## shivaswrath (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm staying away from a fisheye because it's, in my book, a specialty lens with few uses. . .and the Tokina is for cropped sensors only, which really leaves me the Nikkor 14-24mm or the Sigma 12-24. . .I guess the price difference alone ($700 for the Sigma versus $1700 for Nikon), should push it in the right direction, but I'm just wondering if the Sigma is that bad. . .I know it's slow, 4.5-5.6 versus a constant 2.8, but. . . .


----------



## Ejazzle (Mar 9, 2009)

get the siggy


----------



## gaz gun man (Mar 17, 2009)

shivaswrath said:


> However, I was at a friend's wedding the other weekend and buddying up with the photographer (obviously, since I was shooting too for fun!) and got a hold of his Canon 5D mounted with the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6
> 
> WOAH - WIDE AS ALL HELL!!!! Wider than the Nikon 14-24!!!
> 
> And this Sigma 12-24 apparently only retails for $699 (significantly cheaper than the above examples I have used).



Of course its wider, the 5D is full frame.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 20, 2009)

Got the Tokina 12-24 and use it on my D90.  I love it.  Great price also.  Someone might disagree with me, but I think it takes more skill to get nice looking shots when going down to 11mm.


----------



## shivaswrath (Mar 20, 2009)

gaz gun man said:


> Of course its wider, the 5D is full frame.




well yes, clearly that gives one 50% more viewing (when compared to the 1.5X crop on my digital body), but I have tried the 14-24mm Nikkor on a film body, so I guess I was commenting more on how much wider it was than even that. . .


----------

