DSLRUsers.com

I tend to do a lot of landscape photography so am considering a good wide angle lense to add to the kit.

However, it appears that it is considerably more expensive to buy wide angle than something with reasonable zoom. In my uneducated mind, i would of thought that the zoom lenses would be more expensive as they are a lot bigger and have (i assume) more glass.

Can anyone explain why this is? Or alternatively recommend a good value wide angle lense to suit a Nikon?

Cheers

Get a Tokina 12-24mm (if you can find one). Or a Sigma 10-20mm. Neither of these are that horrendously expensive, especially second-hand, but both are good lenses (I have first-hand experience of the Tokina).

I can't really address the cost query, but I can say we have a wealth of informaiton here, and as does the net on various wide angles for Nikon.

The Main contenders are

Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 (I've got it, and most happy with it), some have been less happy with it, suggesting quality various from batch to batch. I like the little extra width I get at 10.

Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 (Has a big front element making use with filters a little challenging (but not 100% impossible).

Tokina 12-24 f/4 Gets a very good wrap, sharp, cheap and well built and probably just beats the Sigma 10-20 as favourite budget lens

Tamron 11-18 f/4.5 - 5.6 (Light, but very plasticy, and IMO not nice to use) Also shorter range.

The very best in most peoples opinion is Nikon 12-24 f4 but its ridculously expensive and doesn't factor as a cost effective option, unless you can only settles for the very very best.

In my opinion, it depends on how wide you want to go - I have a 17-35 2.8 which is not cheap, but I also have a 20mm 2.8 which can be had for about $400-$500 (or less for 2nd hand). I find this focal length great for landscape. If you want to go wider, the cost would ratchet up pretty quickly.

P

I can also vouch for the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikkor 20mm. Both are great lenses and reasonably priced, especially if you can find the 20mm second-hand. One big advantage of the 20mm is that it is quite light, so if you want to go bushwalking, it's a great one to take with you.

Cheers,

André

iGBH wrote:it is considerably more expensive to buy wide angle than something with reasonable zoom. Can anyone explain why this is?

I assume you mean, why is it more expensive to buy a 16mm prime than a 12-24mm zoom? Or are you asking why the 18-200VR is so much cheaper than the 17-55?

Broadly, the answer is that the further you go from the diagonal size focal length, the harder it is to build the lens. For 35mm film, the diagonal is about 50mm, so a 50 or 55mm lens is about as easy as it gets, so you see a lot of good quality, reasonably priced 50mm lenses. With cheap digital SLRs, the smaller sensor is about 30mm diagonally, but only Sigma has really made a prime that matches that size (the 30/1.4, which is excellent value for money).

This also works with zooms, so the full frame 28-70 or 24-70 zooms are typically pretty good, both Nikon and Canon have options in the "stunning, but expensive" range as well as a variety of "great value for the price".

Once you get outside that "easy" range, it starts hurting. Look at the 2x-3x zooms and what they cost - in Canon, a 24-70 is 2k, the 70-200 is 2k but has IS (VR), the 100-400 is only f/5.6 not f/2.8 and it's still 2k. Nikon went for the 200-400/4, but that's stinkingly expensive and only 2x zoom range at f/4.

Again, short lenses work the same way, right down to the UWA crop lenses where you just don't see a fast option at any price - the Nikon 12-24/4 is about as good at it gets. And for image quality in a slow lens, you have a few choices but "cheap" is really not one of them. The kit lenses are short, but... ok, if you know what I mean. Nikon not as bad as Canon in that respect. Both brands offer a pricey 17-55 with stabilisation, and both of those are f/2.8 and quite nice.

Because UWA is really a recent need (the Canon 16-35 used to be a really specialised lens), there don't really seem to be many choices in the primes. Canon make a 14mm rectalinear and a 15mm fisheye, but that's it - they're f/2.8 and there is nothing else. Sigma have a few options, but again the cheaper, slower option is all you get, and it's not really cheap cheap either. There's no 20/1.4 vs 20/1.8 thing, it's 20/1.8 from Sigma for $1000-ish or Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon ($US3k and counting second hand, they don't make it any more).

iGBH wrote:Can anyone explain why this is? Or alternatively recommend a good value wide angle lense to suit a Nikon?

Cheers

Because of the optical limitation of the lens. You need to cram in over 100 degrees of view into a small planar surface which includes the whole image and try to reduce optical distortions as much as possible.

Expense of lenses all comes to the cost and quality of glasses used on the lens. As being a ultra wide angle lens, optical distortion needs to be corrected by moulding and shaping glasses. To get the exact shape of each glass, it requires a good amount of precision and therefore cost... With the glasses, they need to make sure light spread is controlled inside the lens, and with strange behaviours like chromatic aberrations and other colour distortion will need to be minimised, again precision and cost.


As said above, the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 is best bang for the bucks on Nikon Mount wide angles if you cannot afford a Nikkor 12-24.

I might offer a different perspective. Being few players in the glass making industry and many of them share factories, and only differ in the mount they equip at the end.

I am suggesting prices for camera's lenses are so high because all the major players artificially limit supply to swell demand. People will pay almost any price, especially pro's.

I am not saying they are cheap to make, I am not saying all of the cost is because of this. The quality of the glass and materials has to be top notch, but really at the end of the day it's glass/metal and plastic.

Thanks for the responses guys. Has helped answer my question and also given me an idea of some lenses to look out for.

Broadly, the answer is that the further you go from the diagonal size focal length, the harder it is to build the lens.

This makes no sense to me. That would mean that it is harder & more expensive to make a 50mm lens for a DX sensor than it is to make a 50mm for 35mm. Answer: just make a 50mm for a 35mm sensor and sell it as DX for more money Ditto for 100, 200...5000mm lenses

Because of the optical limitation of the lens. You need to cram in over 100 degrees of view into a small planar surface which includes the whole image and try to reduce optical distortions as much as possible.

Now this makes sense

One other factor no one seems to have considered is the economics of scale.
Nearly everyone who buys a camera will buy a 28-70 lens to go with it. Not everyone will buy a 10mm, or for that matter, a 600.. lens. Therefore these latter will be more expensive to make per item as the design, tooling etc cost is spread over a much smaller run. The 50mm etc primes are cheaper in part because the design cost was amortised decades ago when these lenses where the only ones out there.

I'm using a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 on my D200 and find it to be quite good, and it costs under $500 in the bargains section now. I reckon its better value than the Nikon 20mm, since you have more than a stop of extra speed to play with.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Broadly, the answer is that the further you go from the diagonal size focal length, the harder it is to build the lens.

That would mean that it is harder & more expensive to make a 50mm lens for a DX sensor than it is to make a 50mm for 35mm. Answer: just make a 50mm for a 35mm sensor and sell it as DX for more money

Look at the Sigma 30/1.4DC compared to the 50/1.8 from Nikon or Canon. They're all physically tiny lenses and don't cost much. Then look at (say) the Canon 28/1.8... it's huge and costs more than twice what the fast 50's cost. So with the 30mm lens, there's no cheap competition and it's worth making the crop one because the field of view can be much less than for full frame, so the front element is smaller and the lens can be cheaper. While it would be possible to make a new 50mm crop lens, any new lens would probably cost more than the ~$200 or so that the existing 50mm lenses sell for.

Look at the (say) Sigma 17-35 and 18-50DC lenses. For about the same price you get more zoom (50mm instead of 35mm at the long end), and constant f/2.8 instead of f/4 at the long end.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Broadly, the answer is that the further you go from the diagonal size focal length, the harder it is to build the lens.

This makes no sense to me. That would mean that it is harder & more expensive to make a 50mm lens for a DX sensor than it is to make a 50mm for 35mm.

No, not quite.

The focal length is related to the lens objectives and the lens's focal plane: thus, the 50mm refers to the lens size and its focal plane, which is the same, regardless of whether you're shooting DX or FF.

focal length is related to the lens objectives and the lens's focal plane

DO I have this right now?
It is easier to make a 50mm lens that has an (at-infinity) image circle of 50mm than a 35mm lens with an image circle of 50mm, or an 85 with an image circle of 50?(but why not just make one with an image circle of 85?)

Long lenses get tricky because it is not practical to have a lens to film plane distance of say 600mm, so the optics need to be cheated. Also, since the speed of the lens is the ratio between focal length and objective size, fast lenses need BIG glass. An F2 600mm would need to be 300mm wide (if the ratio is linear. I can't remember) Sneaky, therefore expensive, optics would need to be employed to bend this rule. Short lenses are tricky because while the lens to film plane distance is easy, getting the image size to fill the film is not. Again sneaky optics required.
All this without considering aberration. Phew. I'm glad I'm not a lens designer.
Zoom lenses must be really really tricky. So how do they do it so cheap?

Mr Darcy wrote:Also, since the speed of the lens is the ratio between focal length and objective size, fast lenses need BIG glass. An F2 600mm would need to be 300mm wide (if the ratio is linear. I can't remember) Sneaky, therefore expensive, optics would need to be employed to bend this rule.

Unfortunately, this is one rule that can't be bent - it depends purely on the diameter.

Mr Darcy wrote:Zoom lenses must be really really tricky. So how do they do it so cheap?

Volume production.

Cheers

Great thread! Some intersting reading here.

I plan on putting a wide angle lens on a D70 to send it up in a radio controlled helicopter. Therefore my number one requirement is to get something light. None of the specs seem to mention weight so I was hoping someone could recommend something... preferably in the 10-15mm range.

agriffiths wrote:wide angle lens on a D70 to send it up in a radio controlled helicopter.

You're brave. I'm very curious to see how you go, especially with vibration. I'm also assuming it's a nitro chopper, so there's also exhaust and fuel to keep away from the camera.

I would be tempted to try it with the kit lens if you haven't already, that gives you 18mm or so.

I know Canon give you weights on their website, and so do Sigma. Do Nikon not do that? The Sigma 10-20 is 465g, the 12-24 is 600g, Canon's 10-22 is 385g (maybe you should change brands and use a 400D with that lens to save weight )

No it's an electric ship running 600mm blades. Much cleaner and less vibration than a Nitro. I've rigged up a self levelling gimbal with vibration isolation too.

I'd use the kit lens for standard aerial shots but I'd also like to stitch together some 360 panos so the extra width of a fisheye or something would help.

At the same time I don't want to send up a $1500 lens due to the high pucker factor. Something more in the realms of $400-$500 would be good (if possible). Second hand is definately an option.

Hmm, lens lust!

Good, electric is so much more managable. I was just concerned about lift capacity.

Cheap wide angle lens... hmm. Possibly a wide angle converter might be the answer. You can get fisheye and wideangle converters cheaply, and they might be good enough for what you want. I've only seen them in 58mm thread, and quality is not ideal. But they are kinda fun to play with.

moz wrote:Possibly a wide angle converter might be the answer. You can get fisheye and wideangle converters cheaply, and they might be good enough for what you want. I've only seen them in 58mm thread, and quality is not ideal. But they are kinda fun to play with.

I was going to ask about wide angle converters. They seem a much cheaper option than a new lens. Although it sounds like quality is generally no good?

Is it possible to use a filter ie polariser with these converters also?

cause all the wide angles worth buying are fast and exotic!!!!