I hadn't realised but it turns out that I actually have a pretty specific set of requirements for a wide angle lens. That's good in a way, I suppose, since it implies I know what I want but it does mean that a number of available lenses don't meet one or more of the criteria:
+ At least 18mm wide
+ At least f/2.8
+ Decent rating from DxOMark or the like
+ Weigh less than my camera
+ Budget c.£700
+ Not fisheye
I'm open to either prime or zoom if it meets the requiements. The lens I'm using on my DX rig is the Tokina 11-16 and has been superb- my best lens- but I do tend to use it at the widest angle so it would make sense to just get a prime from that POV. I had been looking at switching to the FX equivelent of the 11-16, the 16-28 which I'm sure will deliver what I need but it weighs nearly a kilo! Not the most portable given that I mostly do wandering travel photography.
Sigma and Nikon both have well-regarded beautifully light 20mm primes (the Sigma one is f/1.8!) but I checked the loss of FOV on Nikon's handy lens simulator between 16 and 20mm and it's just too much for me. I prefer to see all the things. My best urban landscape shots are all 16mm equivelent. Sigma also do a 15mm prime but it's a fisheye and a (discontinued) 14mm prime that sadly doesn't appear to be very good. Other offerings from Nikon are a 14mm prime and a 14-24mm, both at f/2.8. This would be ideal were it not for the £1300 price tag.
So where does all this leave me? Apparently having to compromise- pay nearly twice what I'd like, lose some FOV or haul around a tank. I'm stumped.
No comments:
Post a Comment