Well... I'm almost there! I got a 50mm f1.4 Ai'd, a 105mm f2.5 ai'd, and now all i need is something in the 17-24mm range.
It doesn't have to be Nikon brand so long as it's a good lens. Ideally it'll have a 52mm filter ring. I was thinking about a 20mm AIS, but i've seen people with 17mm Vivitar lenses, so I was wondering if there's anything to recommend those.
Then, all I'd need is an F4s to keep my F6 and my F company and... The gas never ends!
I run a 105, 50 and 24 as a light all encompassing carry around kit.
I have 18mm and 24mm Sigma lenses, I find I use the 24 much more often, although if in really tight places the 18 is very good.
The Sigma 2.8 24 Super-Wide II runs a 52mm filter ring, so that fits in perfectly with your Nikkor lenses. The Sigma lenses also focus the same way as Nikkor lenses, another bonus.
The 18mm doesn’t have a screw filter, although mine has had a 72mm filter ring thread attached by the previous owner, who was/is a professional photographer.
My first suggestion would be to give serious thought to a 24mm as it is small and very handy.
The 20mm Nikkor I had for a while, whilst very useful, wasn’t quite there compared to the 18mm and is seriously different to a 24mm. So I opted for a 24 then I go to 18.
I would usually take my Nikon 24mm unless I knew I needed the 28, 35, or 20. I probably use the 24 and the 20 most often. I stick with Nikon so the filters, etc., are interchangeable.
AF-S 17-35/2.8D ED. Beautiful manual-focus feel for older cameras, fast, silent autofocus for newer ones. And wow, what optical quality.
If you don't already own a 24, you should buy a 24. It's far more useful than a 20 or a 17. Using it will also help you learn if you want a 17 or a 20.
If I were using primes exclusively I'd have a 35, 28, 24 and 20. A 17 would be a nice luxury but I could do 95% of what I need with those four lenses.
Still, I like the zoom because it's so convenient for walking around.
Full disclosure: I have prime 24 and 28 Nikkors because sometimes, traveling light is better.
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
I'd be tempted to suggest a 24mm is quite useful. I'd like to get the 17-35 zoom, but Im also tempted to just use primes for they are simply smaller. The older 20-35mm is a little cheaper than the new 17-35, unless you need wide than 20mm which I actually normally don't.
In recent history I've found myself finding those kinds of focal lengths just about the only ones I need. The 24 probably in-particular for it has less distortion than a 20mm.
All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.
I've been trying to figure this out myself. I have a 28mm AI and a 24mm 2.8 N (AI converted) and I really want something wider. Most of the places I want to use the 24 I wish I could go further. The 17mm Tokina seems nice but is difficult to find and the 18mm Nikon is a bit too expensive for me. Been keeping my eye out for a Vivi or Soligor or something inexpensive like that. If I end up loving the focal length I can always step up to the nikkor later.
Sometimes I post my photos on flickr.
Sometimes I update my tumblr.
I have a 28mm f/2.8 AIS and love it. I might prefer the 24mm but, I don't have one. I use the 28/2.8 AIS more than all the other lenses in my Nikon kit combined. In fact, I sometimes wonder why I even bother to keep the others...
Adv Reply
