We have a pretty lengthy thread about cameras but nothing I could find about lenses. A good camera is important but the best camera in the world doesn't matter if the lens you use is crap.

I use a Nikon D750 which is an amazing camera, especially for low light. I've been using an AFS-S Nikor 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6GII for most of my shots (yes I know it's a shit lens but it came in the kit and is why I'm wanting some advice).

One of the problems I have is that anything lower than 24mm I start getting this black ring intruding into the image.

I'm thinking about the 14-24mm lense but it weighs about 3lbs and is two grand! The downside is also I'm stuck with only wide angle shots.

Focal length is my big issue - trying to get it all in a single shot but I want the flexibility of being able to zoom as well. What do most of you use when shooting URBEX?

Get the best glass you can afford. Primes will always be sharper. I shoot canon paired with the new sigma art 35 and 50, grabbing the 24 next. Sigma arts are ridiculous, better warranty and half the price of canon glass and I'm assuming Nikon glass as well.

I keep a sigma 10-20 attached to my camera at all times. It's my favorite lens and it does really well in low light.

They all seem to be fixed focal length for the Nikon. The pricing seems pretty reasonable but I would like something with a range of focal lengths. Ideally I would like something like a 14-700mm so I don't have to swap lenses ever, but no such animal exists.

That's really what I'm asking here is what lens do most people use. Because of mounts etc. I figured the focal length applies to everyone regardless of camera and that's where I'm having my dilemma.

Posted by ZenCanadian Get the best glass you can afford. Primes will always be sharper. I shoot canon paired with the new sigma art 35 and 50, grabbing the 24 next. Sigma arts are ridiculous, better warranty and half the price of canon glass and I'm assuming Nikon glass as well.

I'm fucking dying to get one of those lenses

Sigma does have a 24-35 for Nikon that would be pretty good for ue. I moved away from wide angles, I have a 17-40 but the distortion at 17 is too much for me. The edges fall off huge.

This might help, even if it's Sigma Canada lol http://www.sigmaca...s/?page=2&mountxID[]=6

The distortion factor is huge. I have a fish eye adapter that gives me wide angle but I hate the distortion. I've been told you can clean that up in post production but I don't know how and don't want to learn. The Nikon 14-24 has zero distortion but the price and the weight....

After I posted I did see the 18-35 sigma and it looks like it may do the trick but ya never know until you use it.

If you see a lens that interests you, google it and try to find samples. Flickr sometimes has groups dedicated to a lens as well, so it's good to see what people can do with it. Always best to hit the store and hold it in your hands, they should let you do a couple shots on your camera to see if you like it.

Posted by EsseXploreR I keep a sigma 10-20 attached to my camera at all times. It's my favorite lens and it does really well in low light.

You and me both. One of the best things I have ever bought.

Unless I'm feeling arty in which case I bring out my Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime, which is ridiculously sharp.

I've been elated with the performance of my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on a crop sensor. Wide aperture and super sharp.

I've been a little intrigued with the new Sigma 8-16, but it starts at f/4.5, but for the money, I still think the Tokina has it beat.

The only down side to the Tokina is that is prone to flares when shooting into direct sun, but most UWA lenses are.

Posted by WhiskeyPapa I've been elated with the performance of my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on a crop sensor. Wide aperture and super sharp. I've been a little intrigued with the new Sigma 8-16, but it starts at f/4.5, but for the money, I still think the Tokina has it beat. The only down side to the Tokina is that is prone to flares when shooting into direct sun, but most UWA lenses are.

That's the wide angle to get. Get that if you can. Then, a 35mm prime. And you're good.

The Tokina is cool. With its short zoom. It's almost a prime.

I have the Canon 10-18 4.5-5.6 for inside wides. It feels cheap in your hand but shoots awesome and a "cheap" buy ($300). Best around f9-f11 wich isn't a problem if you tripod anyway. It has IS but I hardly flick it on. Very little geometric distortion. Can have some normal focus fall off on very outside edges.

I use the Sigma 30 f1.4 Art for inside isolating and my Canon 85 1.8 for outside isolating. I keep a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on for landscaping.

If you buy from bhphoto, you'll get the same price as Amazon with no tax. Still free shipping.

I would also add that I typically carry the Sigma Contemporary 17-70 f/2.8-4 also, but almost never use it. It isn't quite as sharp as the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 lenses but it's no slouch either with 20mm extra zoom.

I can also vouch for the Rokinon/Samyang/Bowyer primes. Superb sharpness, but in a fully manual lens, for a very reasonable price. If you're only shooting urbex (still subjects on a tripod), these are great lenses to have.

I use a nikkor 20mm f/2.8 almost exclusively on my d800. I like it....a lot. I also bring a nikkor 50mm f/1.8 as a back up.

D750 shooter here. I personally carry the 14-24mm (worth the weight and bulk to me), a 50mm prime, and an old manual focus 80-200mm, and I find I can finagle just about any shot I want to take. I'd love to get the FX 24-70 but I keep wanting to spend money on traveling instead of more glass.

I shoot Nikon for both digital and film.

A few fellow members here mentioned the Sigma 10-20mm if you are looking for a UWA lens, but I'm going give my 2 cents and say stay far away from that lens. It has horrible corner sharpness and really bad distortion. If you're into UWA lenses check out the Tokina 11-16mm II. It has edge to edge sharpness, almost no distortion even at 11mm, and also is much better for low light at f/2.8.
Just my observations as I have shot with both and currently own the 11-16.

The 11-16 is the only "digital" lens I own. The rest of my lenses are older 1970s-1990s Nikon F mount lenses so I can interchange them between digital and film cameras. They tend to be cheaper and of higher quality and optical performance than many of todays lenses.

Nikon 70-210mm D
Nikon 50mm 1.4D
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Tamron 24-70mm
Sigma 24-50mm
Rokinon 28mm

i work almost exclusively at 35mm. if i cant get far back enough, i go for close-ups, if i cant get close enough, i take a wide & crop it down if i can.

i've thought about getting more and/or better more expensive lenses, but then i remind myself that i'm not making money off my pictures, so it's probly not worthwhile.

Posted by hojah2 i work almost exclusively at 35mm. if i cant get far back enough, i go for close-ups, if i cant get close enough, i take a wide & crop it down if i can. i've thought about getting more and/or better more expensive lenses, but then i remind myself that i'm not making money off my pictures, so it's probly not worthwhile.

If you shoot with Nikon you can get kick ass lenses for like $25

Posted by Peptic Ulcer We have a pretty lengthy thread about cameras but nothing I could find about lenses. A good camera is important but the best camera in the world doesn't matter if the lens you use is crap. I use a Nikon D750 which is an amazing camera, especially for low light. I've been using an AFS-S Nikor 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6GII for most of my shots (yes I know it's a shit lens but it came in the kit and is why I'm wanting some advice). One of the problems I have is that anything lower than 24mm I start getting this black ring intruding into the image. I'm thinking about the 14-24mm lense but it weighs about 3lbs and is two grand! The downside is also I'm stuck with only wide angle shots. Focal length is my big issue - trying to get it all in a single shot but I want the flexibility of being able to zoom as well. What do most of you use when shooting URBEX?

I have the D750 and the Nikon 14-24mm you mentioned. It's really not all that heavy feeling, just... BIG.


May I suggest googling "D750 with Nikon 14-24mm attached", to see just how big.

For the most part it's distortion free like you said, but what's just as important is that it has no chromatic aberration to deal with.

The other lenses I have are:
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX (fixed focal length)
Nikon 18-140 (kit lens from my previous Nikon D7100) and a random
Tamron 75-300 that someone bought me at thrift store.

The only thing I feel I am missing is a lens in the 25-35mm range because the 50mm is kinda long for interiors. It's strong point, however, is extreme depth of field plus the 1.4 aperture, and excellent build quality. Even the lens cap is awesome.

Yes, for the wide angle, $2000 looks expensive, but when trading in all your old camera gear like a camera body and other lenses, it's much easier to afford.