Wide angle lens to recommend for D70

[av98m 0]

With someone like me of poor photography skills, a good lens is essential.

In all seriousness, you do know that a more expensive lens does not a better photographer make, right?

[yslee 0]

The Sigma is just poorer in most places compared to the Nikkor or the Tokina. It has less CA, but the trade-off in edge-to-edge sharpness and build quality is not worth it.

 

In general I just can't trust Sigma build quality. They're a liability that no one has to saddle just to save a few bucks.

[N@Z 0]

Given that you have the finances & 'lobang' then just get the best lens you can afford & don't bother going up the ladder. In the long run you save yourself the trouble & expense.

[Stereo_Electronics 0]

Given that you have the finances & 'lobang' then just get the best lens you can afford & don't bother going up the ladder. In the long run you save yourself the trouble & expense.

I think that's what intend to do, so which is the closest to my budget? I'm not good with prices on lens.

[av98m 0]

Given that you have the finances & 'lobang' then just get the best lens you can afford & don't bother going up the ladder. In the long run you save yourself the trouble & expense.

I think that's what intend to do, so which is the closest to my budget? I'm not good with prices on lens.

Well, the good news then is that your most expensive option, the Nikon 12-24 is about 1.6k, way below your budget limit!

[av98m 0]

Given that you have the finances & 'lobang' then just get the best lens you can afford & don't bother going up the ladder. In the long run you save yourself the trouble & expense.

Well, there's the logic in that as well, provided you're sure you'll be using them regularly and not end up with an expensive paperweight or two.

 

I used that approach buying my body and lens, no regrets so far.

[Stereo_Electronics 0]

Given that you have the finances & 'lobang' then just get the best lens you can afford & don't bother going up the ladder. In the long run you save yourself the trouble & expense.

I think that's what intend to do, so which is the closest to my budget? I'm not good with prices on lens.

Well, the good news then is that your most expensive option, the Nikon 12-24 is about 1.6k, way below your budget limit!

Ok, done. My toy for the week.

[Shiro MS08th 0]

I think a nikon 12-24 is the best bet.

I seen some pros/advanced photographer took scenary shots using that lens.

 

Very good, both the photographer's skill and lens.

 

If you have more money or don't mind 2nd hand, the 17-35 or 17-55 f/2.8 is a great choice too.

If I have money, I would get the 17-35 though.

Film or digital also can use.

[yslee 0]

12-24, 17-35, and 17-55 are VERY VERY different lenses. They shouldn't even be talked about in the same breath. To add, the 17-55 is a much better lens if you're shooting with digital. Can't see many reasons for sticking with film after going digital.

[Blues 0]

in digital 17-18mm is not wide enough IMO(though I have to admit they cover better range compared to specialised wide angle, so it depends on which one you shoot more)

in digital, for budget go for tokina 12-24 or sigma. can't go wrong with both. I choose the sigma coz I think if I have to go wide might as well go all the way. But I think from 20-24 there is quite abit of difference.

with 2 k budget you can comfortably splurge on a nikkor 12-24, though I prefer to go 3rd party and have some surplus for other lens

it's all your choice