D3200 with 14-24mm lens

<p>How well would the 14-24 do on the D3200 and the D90? Obviously I would not ask the question if I did not anticipate the possibility of upgrading to FX in the foreseeable future. (I am a refugee from the Canon camp, where I shot primarily the full-frame 5D, 1Ds II, and 5D II cameras for years.)</p>

<p>The question, however, is not merely for the future, but for now: how well does that specific lens (the 14-24) do on 1.5x crop sensor cameras? If used on the D3200, for example, would the 14-24 perform better than or at least as well as the two DX zooms (10-24 and 12-24) that are most often used on crop sensor Nikons?</p>

<p>In all my years with Canon (both FD and EOS), I never once bought an EF-S lens for the 50D (which I had) or the T2i (which I still have). That is, I used the same lenses for both the FF and 1.6x crop Canons. Is there some particular advantage that the DX lens line has for 1.5x crop Nikons?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>You, trying to go extremely wide for a DX body, are going to attempt to squeeze a large area using a smaller sensor. If you think you will get a FX sensor body, you will have more sensor area to work with when using a wide-angle lens. The *crop* factor of a 1.5 DX sensor works OK with a telephoto lens situation. Trying to squeeze a very wide view on the DX sensor will work, but not as well as the FX sensor (that has more area on the sensor chip.)</p>

<p> </p>

I use my 14-24 on my D300 which is a DX body. I'm always amazed at how good it is. I believe it's

considered the best in the category across all vendors. I just saw this the other day,

http://www.mattk.com/2012/07/09/my-new-favorite-wide-angle-lens/. It might be worth considering. If you

aren't sure that it's right for you, rent it and see what you think. I've used http://www.lensrentals.com before

and they've always been great.

--Wade

<p>21-36mm is kind of a weird focal length. it's not really wide enough to be ultrawide, but it covers 20/24/28/35 focal lengths so it can't be said it's useless. if you use that range a lot, i guess it's ok. i'm not sure i would pay that much for a moderate (on DX) wide angle that cant take filters and dwarfs my camera, especially if i planned on shooting from a tripod, where the unbalance could put a lot of strain on the camera mount. for a whole lot less, you could get either the sigma 8-16 or the tokina 11-16, which are both highly regarded and should have good resale value. it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me to stick an FX UWA on a DX body, especially if you have other 2.8 zooms which cover the same range. but it's your money.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys.</p>

<p>Jerry, I never imagined that DX would be ideal for wide angle, but I do want to be able to shoot pretty wide with the D3200, and I definitely want to be able to shoot very wide when and if I do move up to full-frame Nikons. I am reasonably well covered at the long end with my AF 80-200 f/2.8D (albeit with no AF with the D3200) and my old standby--my beaten-up manual focus 600 f/4 Ai-S, which I used with Canon and which I can now finally use with Nikon without an adapter.</p>

<p>Thanks, Wade. The 16-35 is indeed something to consider, as Matt says in the link. The prospect of VR as well as a protective filter are definitely worth considering, not to mention having more shooting options at the long end. Even so, I am heartened to see that you do like the 14-24 with the D300.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me to stick an FX UWA on a DX body, especially if you have other 2.8 zooms which cover the same range. but it's your money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Eric, but as for "other zooms which cover the same range," I don't have that. In fact, the point is to do this without buying both DX and FX lenses and thus wasting money.</p>

<p>As for Sigma, I've had a Sigma ultra-wide for Canon, and I want something better.</p>

<p>The only thing that I have right now that I can use to shoot full-frame with Nikon lenses is the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n, which is a good bit better than my old 14n, but still a lot more trouble and of no use whatsoever in low light or high ISO.</p>

<p>I'm looking toward full-frame, guys, or I would not even be thinking of the 14-24.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I just read this as part of a review of the 16-35 at B&H:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The lens has a great "feel" and quality to it after shooting with it for a few days and being fairly happy, but not overly impressed, I decided to test it against my 18-105 VR. After a series of 33 shots with each lens of a variety of subjects, at the same settings and the shared focal lengths of 18, 24, and 35, the 18-105 clearly was sharper in 22 of the shots and the rest they were very close! I knew the 18-105 was a good lens, but the results were certainly a surprise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I should just save my money for the D800 and stay with the 18-105 a bit longer. I have to say that 18mm (framing like a 27mm lens on the D3200) is not awe-inspiring, but it's not too bad.</p>

<p>There is also the thought that maybe I should even stay with DX permanently and buy the 10-24 or 12-24 if I really think that I can get good results shooting very wide with a DX camera and DX lenses. I know that many people would think that that would not be possible, but there is a lot of data packed on the D3200 sensor.</p>

<p>I am still evaluating the D3200, in any case. I have the sense that--because of the pixel density--I might be able to use DX for some serious landscape and mountain photography, in spite of its being a DX camera. I am dubious myself, but I certainly haven't given up on it yet for some serious work all the way from wide angle to telephoto.</p>

<p>If I do stay with the D3200 for quite a while, I am still wondering what is the best wide or ultra-wide to use on it.</p>

<p>One thing that I can say for the D3200: it may be small, but it is not a toy. I feel pretty certain that it can handle and make the most of some very good lenses. I know that the Canon T2i with 18 mp certainly does fine with the EF 24-70, and that is in fact the last Canon combo that I have--and I am reluctant to get rid of. I even thought of having it as my back-up kit if I went with the D800--an unusual back-up, to be sure, but I already have both the T2i and the EF 24-70 in hand (and I have been mixing Canon and Nikon stuff for years, starting with using the 600 f/4 Ai-s on my original 5D).</p>

<p>Like I said, I need to continue to evaluate the D3200 in terms of its possibilities. Anything that anyone could suggest by way of wide angle lenses would still be most welcome.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, I just purchased a Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24 F4.0 for my D7000 and absolutely love it. Believe all you hear about the build quality of the Tokinas. Both the 12-24 and the 11-16 are now available in a version that will autofocus with your D3200 and the price is very reasonable compared to Nikon's offerings. The Nikon 10-24 also gets very good reviews and covers an arguably better overall range but is a bit more money. These are very addictive lenses. And for the record, my Tokina is tack sharp. If you have an opportunity to rent or borrow one, do so. You might find it to be your favorite lens. Mine is.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Thanks, Tom. Unfortunately, neither of those lenses will auto-focus with the entry level DSLRs. I would like to try then in general, however, since they do get good reviews.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Actually, both lenses have a 'Version II' that have autofocus motors in them and they <em>will</em> focus on your D3200. From the B&H website: <em> "In addition, this updated "II" version incorporates a motor built into the lens itself, which gives it the capability to autofocus with all Nikon DSLR cameras..."</em><br>

<em>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/594649-REG/Tokina_ATX124DXIIN_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124.html</em><br>

<em>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/882236-REG/Tokina_atx116prodxn_ii_AT_X_116_PRO_DX_II.html</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Tom<br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>i have been thinking long and hard about getting an ultrawide for my d7000 and d90. reading various reviews and studying sample pics it is clear to me that most, if not all dx ultrawides have some kind of drawback. these are usually distortion, ghosting, chromatic aberration and flare. if you really are serious about lanscapes and creative wide angle work i would forget dx and go full frame. (i am a dedicated dx user). ultra wide angle photography is the dx users achiles heel.</p>

The 14-24 is in my opinion a hilariously inappropriate lens on dx

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, both lenses have a 'Version II' that have autofocus motors in them and they <em>will</em> focus on your D3200. From the B&H website: <em> "In addition, this updated "II" version incorporates a motor built into the lens itself, which gives it the capability to autofocus with all Nikon DSLR cameras..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Tom! That sounds like my choice, then. I appreciate your help very much.</p>

<p>--Lannie<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 14-24 is in my opinion a hilariously inappropriate lens on dx --Chris Nielsen</p>

<p>Obviously I would not ask the question if I did not anticipate the possibility of upgrading to FX in the foreseeable future. --LK</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yet, yet, from discussions like these--discussions of the<em> prima facie</em> unthinkable--we do yet learn. Maybe I really do not need to go to FF just because that is primarily what I have been shooting since 2004: first Kodak, then Canon.</p>

<p>The 14-24 would only make sense, Chris, if I were thinking of moving to the D800 or other FX camera--the basic assumption of this entire thread. What Tom and others are implicitly suggesting is that perhaps I do not have to use full frame in order to get the results I want.</p>

<p>I still like FX or FF for low light, however. I have not seen any 1.6x Canon or 1.5x Nikon system that can touch what FF or FX is doing at high ISO in low light--<em><strong>yet</strong></em>. That is, the trend seems to be more and more performance from smaller and smaller systems, and so I do not know what the next wave of crop sensor cameras will be able to do.</p>

<p>I realize full well that only a small part of the image circle of the 14-24 would be used on the D3200. The question is what kind of results it gives in that part of the image circle that it does use.</p>

<p>Now let me go look at those links Tom provided for the Tokinas. When you are semi-retired and not getting any younger, you have to start thinking about realistic alternatives--but you don't necessarily stop thinking the unthinkable just because of what others might think, especially those who have never done much thinking.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The reason I think the 14-24 is a terrible idea on DX is that it's a specialist lens for FX, on DX you have all the disadvantages - no filters, massive size and weight and that huge lump of glass sticking out the front, and you have none of the advantages that it gives you on FX. What I would do is take the $$$ for that lens, stick it in a savings account. Buy a used 10-24 or similar lens, use it on DX and be happy. When you come to get a FX camera you can probably sell the 10-24 for similar to what you paid for it, then buy the 14-24 when you have a FX camera to mount it on.</p>

<p>That sounds like a rational thing to do, Chris. Thank you. I hate selling on eBay, but it might be the lesser of evils in this case.</p>

<p>There is one other consideration that I have not mentioned: I still shoot the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n from time to time, and that is a full-frame camera. DPReview never followed up with a decent review of that Kodak upgrade after panning the 14n, but I have been quite pleased this spring when shooting the big Kodak:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1028279</p>

<p>So, until such time as I might be able to get the D800, I might be able to use the 14-24 on the old clunky Kodak--which just happens to produce some startlingly good landscapes as long as one accepts the fact that it only has 13.5 usable megapixels and is not a low light camera. I have been using Kodaks since 2004 and can anticipate just about all the problems one is likely to have with them.</p>

<p>For using an ultra-wide around town, a used 10-24 sounds like a pretty good idea.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><a name="00amUy"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a> and <a name="00amYe"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2346076">Chris Nielsen</a> have sum it up very well.</p>

<p>The 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S is a super wide lens for FX but has a limited zoom range. On DX, it is only borderline super wide at its widest 14mm setting. While it does cover some useful focal lengths for DX, it is far cheaper and more convenient to get a DX lens that covers 10-24mm at f4 or 11-16mm at f2.8: no bulky front element, can take filters, etc.</p>

<p>I realize the Sigma 12-24mm DG (FX) HSM f4.5-6.6 is a bit slow but it is nearly half the cost and will be wider (~18mm) on DX than the 14-24mm (~22mm) and take you on to 'become' truly ultra-wide when you upgrade to FX.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun. Frankly, a lot depends on how quickly I plan to move up to the D800--a decision which I have to put on hold for now, and not only for financial reasons, although those remains primary.</p>

<p>If I move up to the D800 pretty quickly, then I would like to get the 14-24.</p>

<p>I still am not sure how much I like the D3200--even as an entry level camera. In some ways I think I prefer the image quality (apart from resolution) of my D90. At times I even like the image quality better from my old Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n--the latest and last Nikon-compatible version of the Kodak, which is a lot better than most people ever knew (at least in good light, not low light). I really, really like per pixel sharpness on my out-of-camera files. The D3200 really does not have that. I am not sure that the use of the best lenses would <strong><em>not</em> </strong>be a waste on it, in spite of the remonstrations about the need for good lenses from the writers over at DPReview.com. I do sort of want to know what it can do if given the chance. I'm not even sure why.</p>

<p>I need to see more images. I cannot afford to buy or rent the equipment myself to see what this camera is capable of, and that issue is the subtext of all this discussion where the D3200 is concerned. Yes, it is a fine camera for the money. JUST HOW GOOD IS IT? I won't know that until I see what it can do with letter lenses than I have. Short of buying the D800, I keep wondering what I would be saying now had I bought the D7000 as my first Nikon DSLR after the D90.</p>

<p>In any case, I was not asking about the "appropriateness" of this lens for this camera, but about the actual image quality if anyone has shot the D3200 with a high end FX wide angle--and thus my reference to the 14-24 in the question. With Canon I loved shooting my best lenses at times on the T2i--sort of for fun but getting very usable results. I found no image quality issues with the use of, say, the EF 70-200 f/2.8 on 1.6x crop sensor cameras. Did the rig look a bit ridiculous? Yes, there was something comical about the image of a little T21 stuck on a huge Canon EF lens. The images were anything but comical, however, and with the T2i they rivaled the results coming from the same lens on the 5D II.</p>

<p>In any case, there are two questions here mixed up together: (1) which lens should I buy next? and (2) just how good is the D3200 with really, really good lenses? I am sorry if I seem to be asking persons to read my mind. There is simply a side to me that keeps wondering if this little camera has potential that I simply cannot pull out with my existing lenses. I find the issue intriguing. I want to see others' pictures if I cannot make my own.</p>

<p>There is another side to me that says, "Why don't I just sell everything else (including what's left of my Canon gear) and buy the D800 and forget about this little novelty camera?"</p>

<p>Frankly, I just like playing with glass, always have since my early teen years with refractor telescopes. It is now a very expensive game with cameras and lensels, however, and at age sixty-seven and semi-retirement, I am not sure how much longer I am going to keep being able to play. I'm not whining here, just chafing about the non-joys of retirement income. As for other age-related issues, I have already had one shoulder rebuilt, but heavy gear still does not bother me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I realize the Sigma 12-24mm DG (FX) HSM f4.5-6.6 is a bit slow but it is nearly half the cost and will be wider (~18mm) on DX than the 14-24mm (~22mm) and take you on to 'become' truly ultra-wide when you upgrade to FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had that lens for Canon, Mike, and just sold it not long ago--after taking some last shots at night with it on the T2i:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/15905053</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I found with the Sigma 12-24 was that, whether used on the T2i or the 5D II, it gave great results for screen display, but it was not as impressive when the files were sized for printing. Maybe it was just about my copy. I really do not know.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, was that the MKI or MkII? </p>

<p>I've just got a D3200 and am thinking about the 12-24mm DG HSM MK II as I also have a D700 and nothing wider for FX than a 18-35mm 3.5-4.5</p>

<p>Mike, that was the original. I hear that the newer version (Mark II) is a lot better. Overall, the Mark I was not bad at all for the kind of "expressive" work that I did with it:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1009957">[link]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>My take: great lens on DX and FX if you can deal with the size and lack of (reasonable) filter options. Actually, if you are not an ultra wide angle addict, a 21-36 "equivalent" is kind of perfect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe I should even stay with DX permanently and buy the 10-24 or 12-24 if I really think that I can get good results shooting very wide with a DX camera and DX lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i've had the tokina 12-24/4 as my DX UWA since 2007. it's a really capable performer, and at f/8-11, where i would typically shoot landscape, it's very good; easily handling large prints up to 20x30. one thing i've noticed is that, unlike my nikon 24-70 AF-S, sigma 17-50/2.8, and the tamron 17-50 i used to have, at 17mm (24mm FX equiv.), there's no distortion -- which is fairly pronounced with the other zooms at their widest settings. i haven't tried the nikon 10-24 or 12-24, but the tokina seems to have equivalent or possibly even better IQ (depending on sample variation?). don't let the (relatively) low price fool you; the tokina is a pro lens in terms of both IQ and build.</p>

<p>i've been considering the sigma 8-16 for my DX bodies, which has gotten great reviews, but i would hold on to the tokina even if i copped that. if i wanted the best possible IQ on a DX UWA, i'd get the tokina 11-16, but i find the long end of the 12-24 just too useful to switch. </p>

<p>in your situation, the d3200's 24mp sensor seems like it would be awesome for landscape pics, stopped down on a tripod, at base ISO. remember that you will lose about a stop of DoF by going FX; therefore a case can be made that with the right lenses, DX is actually a better choice for typical landscape shooting (caveat: depending on how large you print). in general, i'm more a fan of <em>get what you know you need now</em>, than <em>get what you may or may not need later</em>. it seems like you haven't really utilized the d3200's capabilities with an ultrawide, so how can you know if the DX UWAs produce good results? the advantages are generally more compact profile and lower weight, lower cost, and better balance with smallish bodies. even if you bought one of the tokinas now, and sold it later, you'd still probably get 80% of purchase price back. that's well within the realm of acceptable risk, IMO.</p>

 

<p>You might find <a href="http://www.3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2">this review</a> interesting. The NEX-7 has the same sensor size and resolution (possibly the same sensor?) as the D3200. It's epic in the corners of full frame (if you correct the chromatic aberrations), but it seems to struggle in the centre compared with others - though the Zeiss is even more preposterously expensive than the 14-24. Stopped down in the centre, the Samyang looks to have more microcontrast at 24MP DX.</p>