Originally Posted by KDKarlson
OK folks, I'm just getting back into photography after a long absence, and have picked up a D40 kit (with the 18-55) and a 70-300VR. I have been thinking about going with a little shorter lens next, and the two that catch my eye are:
A: Nikkor 10-24f3.5-4.5, 16.2 oz, ~$810 at B&H
B: Nikkor 12-24f4, 16.4 oz (if I did the math right, strange that Nikon would list one lens' weight in grams and another in oz. on their website), ~$940 at B&H
So I assume that when you are talking about lenses this short that 2mm is fairly significant. So is a fixed f4 worth trading 2mm on the short end? Is a variable f-stop of 3.5-4.5 that much of a detriment?
My apologies if this has been covered. I looked through the first 10 pages of threads and didn't find an answer to my questions.
Also, any hints on how to get the most out of a superwide? My shortest lens when shooting film was a 24f2.8D.
I don't think constant, fast aperture is all that important with a lens this wide. Your DOF is large, even at bigger apertures, and you'll typically be shooting this lens stopped down anyway. I have a Sigma 10-20, and love it..it's very wide and a lot cheaper than the Nikkors. The key to using ultrawides is depth. Think foreground, middle, background, and there should be elements in each. Otherwise, you just have a wide, flat image.