14mm f/2.8 vs 12-24mm f/4

I already have a sigma 14mm for my nikon d200. But on a recent trip to the

badlands, the amount of flaring became a problem. The tokina 12-24mm does not

have this issue, and i was wondering about switching lenses. Is this a good

move, or should i hold onto the 14mm?

I had the Sigma 14mm 3.5 and it was flare city all the time even in cloudy weather. I sold

it and bought the Tokina 12-24mm and have never looked back. I especially like the

ability to zoom in to a reasonable 35mm focal length when wide angle isn't needed.

 

Dave

The Nikon 14mm has superb flare control, it is just incredible in this respect. Unfortunately it produces quite mushy detail in other respects on the D200, needs a bit of post-processing to get good prints from. Planning to replace the 14mm with a 12-24mm soon.

Eric, I've done some tests on the 12-24mm Nikon on the D200 and the print quality from the zoom is far better than that from the 14mm unprocessed. And yes, it also flares very little. Corners, however, are soft at wide apertures in the wide end.

So sharp that it hurts my eyes! :-)

I have the Sigma 14 f/2.8 but If i had the money i would buy nikon 12-24 speciale if you use it with Dslr but if you use it with Slr so i think go for Nikon 14mm f/2.8!

The only thing about the Nikon 12-24 is the drawing, which is a bit barrel, especially at the 12mm end. This can be seen in Eric's picture, but only if you really look for it. And that is the point - unless you want to take meticulous photos for architectural coffee table books it is not a problem. I can forgive a lens this distortion as long as it's sharp which the 12 - 24mm is. It is a personal thing though.

 

JD

Repost with smaller image:

 

 

I had a 14mm f/2.8 AFD Nikkor and the 12-24mm f/4.0 DX Nikkor. As I had sold off my Nikon film cameras and was only shooting Nikon DSLRs, I sold the 14mm and kept the 12-24mm Nikkor because:

 

 

1. The 12-24mm is at least as good optically at 14mm as the 14mm lens and is not quite as prone to flaring.

 

 

2. The 12-24mm is more versatile with its 18-36mm/35mm equiv. zoom.

 

 

3. The 12-24mm takes 77mm filters whereas the 14mm cannot take filters and has that honking front element that's just begging to be scratched when not covered by a lens cap.

 

 

4. I'm spoiled and like the AFS focusing on the 12-24mm Nikkor.<div></div>

Ilkka, in fairness to the 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor, I liked it better optically on Nikon DSLRs than, say, Bjorn Roslett. Also, if you have to shoot the 35mm format equivalent of a 20mm on a DSLR and need at least f/2.8, it isn't like Nikon has given DSLR shooters a choice.

 

 

That having been said, the 17-55mm DX lens gives me the wide end range I need at f/2.8. I'm able to shoot the 12-24mm at f/8.0-11 almost all the time and usually on a tripod. This takes care of any corner softness issues.

 

 

As to JAD's comment, the images I've posted were not fiddled with in lens correction. So if you were troubled with barrel distortion, you could still drag the images into PSCS2 and do lens correction.

 

 

This image has been heavily cropped. The base of the tower was probably 50 feet above my position.<div></div>