Reading mode: Light Dark

Are there some older ultra-wide zooms that work on the D700...

Go to last post
A

ActArtPhotog

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
Location
US
As an option? Tamron, Tokina, Sigma? I would love a 14-24mm or a 17-35mm, but even the 17-35mm is a bit too much right now. Are there any other options in that range out there that are on the used market that will work well on the D700? I just bought a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS and would like to find something in the 17-35mm range.

http://www.wcgreen.net
 
--You can tray Tokina AF 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 its and older lens but when introduced and tested by PP magazine they have been scratching heads as how a lens at $245 is that good. Today you can found one on eBay for under $110. I have one use it on DX and its perfectly fine for me. I had not have a chance to see how it works on FX but I will shoot some with it this weekend so I will see.
Mironv
http://mironv.smugmug.com/

 
Mironv said:
--You can tray Tokina AF 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 its and older lens but when introduced and tested by PP magazine they have been scratching heads as how a lens at $245 is that good. Today you can found one on eBay for under $110. I have one use it on DX and its perfectly fine for me. I had not have a chance to see how it works on FX but I will shoot some with it this weekend so I will see.
Mironv
http://mironv.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...
Thanks... would love to hear about that!

http://www.wcgreen.net
 
I'm going to be buying a Nikon 20-35 f/2.8 next week. Very similar to the 17-35, just no AF-S, not quite as wide, and not quite as sharp in the corners.

But it's alot smaller, almost the same range, and a heck of alot lighter. I'm getting mine in mint condition for $700.
 
I have the 20-35/2.8 and I like it.

It has a fair amount of distortion at the 20mm end, and the extreme corners are quite soft, but overall it's a nice lens. It fits well with the D700.

I also have a 20/2.8 AiS, which outperforms the zoom. Much sharper corners at wide to middling apertures, and less distortion, thought still noticeable.

And I also have a 20/3.5 AiS. It needs to be stopped down to f11 or f16 for sharp corners. It's greatest attribute is its resistance to flare. Useful not just for shooting into the sun, but any situation where you're shooting into the light (e.g. interiors/windows).

Elliot
 
I recently bought the tammy 17-35mm second hand.

It's sharp open wide in the centre, with corners as usual soft. I love it for close up shots.
I like the colours and the contrast too

If you are intending to use it for night shots then i won't recommend it. Somehow it doesn't seem to handle long exposure night shots well.

Otherwise, in the day and shooting raw, u can get very very decent results from f/8 and up.

I actually find IQ better at f8 17mm than at 35mm f8.

For the price, I really think its hard to beat.

You might have to adjust the AF fine tune though... Don't know if its a UWA zoom lens quirk, but i had to tune mine to -11.

If you really want it, better hurry as i think prices are rising because tamron has discontinued the lens
 
I am surprised no body has mentioned this as of yet. I had this lens a while ago with in use with DX body...before getting a 10-30. The 15-30 was better in many regards to the 10-20, but the 10-20 was wider obviously...and smaller. The 15-30 is a little on the large size, but at least on DX, it was a great lens. Do some research on how it performs on a FX body, but for about $400 used (that's what I paid for it a few years ago), it might be the perfect lens. I can't remember why I ruled it out when selling a Sigma 12-24 to get the Nikon 14-24.

--
Drew
-- http://drewloker.com/about.htm
 
Drew Loker said:
I am surprised no body has mentioned this as of yet. I had this lens a while ago with in use with DX body...before getting a 10-30. The 15-30 was better in many regards to the 10-20, but the 10-20 was wider obviously...and smaller. The 15-30 is a little on the large size, but at least on DX, it was a great lens. Do some research on how it performs on a FX body, but for about $400 used (that's what I paid for it a few years ago), it might be the perfect lens. I can't remember why I ruled it out when selling a Sigma 12-24 to get the Nikon 14-24.

--
Drew
-- http://drewloker.com/about.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will do some checking on this one as well!
 
KnightPhoto2 said:
Little wider than you requested, but the Sigma 12-24 is the widest FX lens there is...
--
Click to expand...
The Sigma 12-24 is not very good on FF. A better option would be the Nikon 18-35. This lens has been discontinued but I guess there are quite a lot of lenses out there. It used to be compared, when stopped down, with the 17-35.

Regards

Paul
 
I Beam said:
A better option would be the Nikon 18-35. This lens has been discontinued but I guess there are quite a lot of lenses out there. It used to be compared, when stopped down, with the 17-35.
Click to expand...
Since when was the 18-35 discontinued? It's still available at B&H, Adorama and others, and is still listed on the Nikon USA website.

--
Cheers!
  • Rich


http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_graceful/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top