Which Nikon wide?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi there

 

I need a prime wider than 28mm to finish off my set of Nikon-mount lenses.

 

I'm looking at the old 18mm f/4, but they go for about $500 which is a bit steep for a 70s lens that isn't very fast.

 

I'm not seeing too many alternatives, though. Any ideas?

 

Thanks,

 

Phil

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I frequently use the 20mm f/3.5 from the late 60s/early 70s and it's a great rectilinear lens with not a ton of distortion. I picked mine up for $2-300ish if I recall correctly, in near-mint condition.

[Andrew Payne]

Phil, Nikon made a bunch of wides that remain expensive, but some may be found reasonably priced. The really wide 14mm and 15mm are probably more expensive than what you found.

 

There was an 18mm 3.5 that's about the same price as the f/4.

 

There's a 20mm f/2.8, a 20mm f/3.5, and a 20mm f/4 that are all progressively less expensive.

 

There was also a 24mm f/2 and a 24mm f/2.8, but those may be harder to find and too close to your 28mm in any event.

[rob spence]

I've used the 20m f2.8 on HD and would use it again.

[Phil Rhodes]

This one?

 

I didn't know they still made that style.

 

P

[rob spence]

That's the one....wow, they're still making it?

I've seen them on ebay for about £200 to £300 (and upwards)...they are fairly sought after.

[Max Field]

Unless you NEED the brand to be Nikon/vintage:

Have you considered a Nikon-F mount Bower cine? 16mm is only $280. T2.2 is creeping on the fast side.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Phil Rhodes]

Hmm, interesting. I wonder how it compares to the 1980s stuff.

[rob spence]

20mm nikon seems to be the same as todays version.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20af.htm

Edited September 21, 2016 by rob spence

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I suppose the only downside would be having one lens with "correct" focus direction and several with "opposite" (Nikon)

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Hey Phil, see if you can find a Sigma 16mm 2.8 That's one of the wides I have and it's lovely.

looks like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hicamera/8316146729/

 

The bower/rokinon/samyang lenses are all kinda ok, but I don't like them as much as the "vintage" stuff.

There is also a Nikon 24~120 zoom 3.5/5.6 which yeah I know is slow; but a 5x zoom going for around $120~200 used isn't too bad. Great for interviews and the like

[Phil Rhodes]

Noted, although they seem to be made out of unobtainium.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Here you go Phil

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sigma-16mm-2-8-Filtermatic-With-Box-Filters-and-Leather-Case-Nikon-F-Mount-/222254583463?hash=item33bf67cea7:g:DzIAAOSwFdtX0hqt

[Phil Rhodes]

I doff my hat to you, sir. For some reason, that doesn't show up on UK eBay.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

If you go for it and any problems come up you can ship it over to my place and i can fwd it, at your service as always.

[Phil Rhodes]

I suspect I'd mainly be using it on s35 sensors, so it shouldn't be quite so screamingly fisheye, I guess.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Yeah it's a big better APS-C. I originally got it for my GH2 though now a days i use it on my F4 for the fish-eye. Though, it is a fish-eye lens (with BTL filters), I can't think of any really cheap rect lenses.

[Phil Rhodes]

I want the fabled Nikon 13mm.

 

I do not have $10,000 to spend on a lens.

 

I'm not sure how bendy the 18 is, though.

 

That Tokina 17 is starting to sound good. Rectilinear, from what I've seen. Cheap. Slowish.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

There's also the Tonika 11~16 zoom; quite popular.

[Phil Rhodes]

Well, I just bought the Tokina RMC f/3.5 17mm. Will report.

 

P