D3200 with 14-24mm lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by landrum_kelly, Sep 1, 2012.

  1. 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.)
    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?
    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?
    --Lannie
     
  2. 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.)
     
  3. 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
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. Thanks, guys.
    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.
    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.
    --Lannie
     
  6. 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.​
    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.
    As for Sigma, I've had a Sigma ultra-wide for Canon, and I want something better.
    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.
    I'm looking toward full-frame, guys, or I would not even be thinking of the 14-24.
    --Lannie
     
  7. I just read this as part of a review of the 16-35 at B&H:
    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.​
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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).
    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.
    --Lannie
     
  8. 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.
    Tom
     
  9. 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.
    --Lannie
     
  10. Actually, both lenses have a 'Version II' that have autofocus motors in them and they will focus on your D3200. From the B&H website: "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..."
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/594649-REG/Tokina_ATX124DXIIN_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124.html
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/882236-REG/Tokina_atx116prodxn_ii_AT_X_116_PRO_DX_II.html

    Tom


     
  11. 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.
     
  12. The 14-24 is in my opinion a hilariously inappropriate lens on dx
     
  13. Actually, both lenses have a 'Version II' that have autofocus motors in them and they will focus on your D3200. From the B&H website: "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..."
    Thank you, Tom! That sounds like my choice, then. I appreciate your help very much.
    --Lannie
     
  14. The 14-24 is in my opinion a hilariously inappropriate lens on dx --Chris Nielsen
    Obviously I would not ask the question if I did not anticipate the possibility of upgrading to FX in the foreseeable future. --LK​
    Yet, yet, from discussions like these--discussions of the prima facie 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.
    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.
    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--yet. 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.
    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.
    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.
    --Lannie
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. 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.
    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:
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1028279
    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.
    For using an ultra-wide around town, a used 10-24 sounds like a pretty good idea.
    --Lannie
     
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric Arnold and Chris Nielsen have sum it up very well.
    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.
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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.
    If I move up to the D800 pretty quickly, then I would like to get the 14-24.
    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 not 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?"
    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.
    --Lannie
     
  20. 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.​
    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:
    http://www.photo.net/photo/15905053​
    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.
    --Lannie
     
  21. Lannie, was that the MKI or MkII?
    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
     
  22. 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:
    [link]
    --Lannie
     
  23. bms

    bms

    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.
     
  24. 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'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.
    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.
    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 get what you know you need now, than get what you may or may not need later. 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.
     
  25. You might find this review 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.
     
  26. As for Sigma, I've had a Sigma ultra-wide for Canon, and I want something better.​
    sigma actually makes some decent UWAs, with the exception of the 12-24 I, perhaps. i've been using the 15-30 on FX, and its been good enough that i've resisted the urge to get a 14-24. i'm not super-picky about corners, though, probably because i shoot more urban landscape than nature. i like to shoot close, so the 8-16 appeals to me for DX, and from all reports, its IQ is stellar. in any event, 14-24 on DX is like putting a rear spoiler on a prius. you can do it, but why would you want to?
     
  27. "DX is like putting a rear spoiler on a prius. you can do it, but why would you want to?"--Eric Arnold
    "Obviously I would not ask the question if I did not anticipate the possibility of upgrading to FX in the foreseeable future."--LK, in my second sentence at the outset of this thread​
    I don't actually expect to stay with DX, Eric. I could conceivably do so, but doing so is not my plan. The simplest thing for me to do would be to sell other gear and go ahead and buy the D800. With the time I have spent on this thread, I could have listed several items on eBay already.
    Thanks nonetheless for the tips on the Sigmas.
    --Lannie
     
  28. sigma actually makes some decent UWAs, with the exception of the 12-24 I, perhaps.​
    Huh? I've used a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on Canon, and it wasn't all that hot (for the money). The 20mm f/1.8 is awful, in my brief experience. In contrast, I've heard mostly good things about the 12-24, although maybe I've only seen an update reviewed. (I have an 8mm Sigma fish-eye, and it's not bad, so I can't generalize here.)
     
  29. In situations like Lannie finds himself in, where he is contemplating the move to full-frame and questioning the sufficiency/effectiveness of his current DX camera, I am wondering exactly what he gains from the move. I suspect there is an element at play that we don't fully understand that is responsible for his lack of enthusiasm for the D3200. Lens sharpness? Technique? Camera unfamiliarity? I doubt that the camera itself is to blame for the problem. It could be, but I doubt it.
    So one of the conclusions is to return to full-frame, the apparent holy-grail of cameradom. But what does he gain? Can anyone who owns both a full frame digital and a DX show the difference in an identically framed shot, taken with lenses that represent identical fields of view, and then point to where the FX is superior or results in a significant improvement in IQ? This would be meaningful to me if I could see where, say, a shot is taken with a D700 (12mp) with a 35mm lens and the same shot is taken with a D300 (12mp) with a 20mm lens. The effective field of view should be very similar. So where the improvement? I'm not interested in which camera can see better in the dark, as those variables differ with each camera model. If the move to full-frame will solve his problem, I'd like to know how. I'm not a skeptic, I just don't know the answer to the question and would like to see samples that reflect how this helps him.
    Tom
     
  30. In situations like Lannie finds himself in, where he is contemplating the move to full-frame and questioning the sufficiency/effectiveness of his current DX camera, I am wondering exactly what he gains from the move. I suspect there is an element at play that we don't fully understand that is responsible for his lack of enthusiasm for the D3200. . . . I'm not interested in which camera can see better in the dark, as those variables differ with each camera model. If the move to full-frame will solve his problem, I'd like to know how​
    Tom, I do find full-frame (at its best) to be vastly superior in low light and high ISO, and so I am interested in which camera shoots better in the dark. I love shooting in near darkness. Even so, the D800 is admittedly not a superior low-light camera, but it does have very high and useable resolution. The pixel density on the D800 is about the same as that on the D7000, but the pixel density on the D3200 is much higher. With down-sampling, the D3200 can do pretty well, I think, but no one is ever going to say that it is suitable for low-light work.
    I have gotten some of my best shots on the D3200 at ISO 800 hand-held. That suggests to me that it is a very good walk-around daytime camera, and I will likely keep it, no matter what else I buy. I suspect that, if I were going to stay with DX Nikons as my primary cameras, the D7000 might be better for my more serious photography. The D3200 is a lot of fun. I am not sure how well it is likely to perform as a serious camera. I will keep my mind open in that regard.
    As for the D800, it would be great for landscapes and general photography. For night photography, my guess is that I will need something else besides the D3200 or the D800. I would love to also have the D700, but, hey, I cannot afford everything. My photographic interests are omnivorous. I will always want more than I can afford.
    There just is not a single camera that I know of that has a reputation for being superior at everything. If money were no object, I would have the D800, D7000, and the D700. That would not be realistic for a person of my means, and so I thought that I would see what I could pull out of the D3200. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. Maybe I will hop over to another site for a few minutes to see results by camera--and see just what others are getting with the D3200.
    When one transitions from Canon as I am in the middle of doing, one has to do a lot of long-range planning if one has limited means. Going back to Canon FF remains an option, but not a likely one with Canon's current new offerings. Nikon is clearly trail-blazing at this point. I am not sure that Canon is. In any case, most of my Canon glass is gone at this point, since I had to sell it to meet some emergency expenses during the winter and spring. That left me in a position to reassess whether or not to go back to Canon as things got better, or to move to Nikon. The D3200 was a low-risk poke in that direction. Buying the D800 and a couple of good lenses, on the other hand, would represent a much stronger commitment. That is the primary reason for my vacillation.
    I do enjoy playing with new gear of all sorts. That is a weakness that I will not try to defend, although I will say this: I like knowing what all the discussions are about. We are at unique turn in history, since we have witnessed the shift from film to digital. I like trying a lot of new things at this juncture, just for my own knowledge of this very interesting time. It's an expensive game, but that is why I drive old Hondas. Even my motorcycle is a 1982 CB 900C. Life is about risks and choices, and I am not proselytizing for my approach to anything, which is admittedly crazy. It's also fun. I'm just enjoying myself out here. There's no point trying to analyze my rational motives. I don't have any where cameras are concerned.
    --Lannie
     
  31. I understand better where you are coming from. Thanks for the back-story. Decisions, decisions. Well, if you aren't in a hurry, I suppose you might be in a position to see what Nikon may introduce later this month. If the persistent rumors prevail, we may very well see a lower-cost alternative to Nikon's current FX offerings. Might give you the low-light capability you are after and enough pixels to peep for resolution. A D800 is such a big commitment in so many ways. Finding the sweet spot with resolution, ergos, low-light capability and lenses is a personal decision and only you know what's truly important. Let us know what you decide.
    Tom
     
  32. If the persistent rumors prevail, we may very well see a lower-cost alternative to Nikon's current FX offerings.​
    Thanks, Tom. Yes, I am hoping that there might be some other forthcoming FX camera that would not be such a financial strain. Photography will likely remain a hobby for me, after all, and so it should stay fun--which it cannot do if the financial burden is too high.
    --Lannie
     
  33. ...lack of enthusiasm for the D3200...
    The simplest thing for me to do would be to sell other gear and go ahead and buy the D800.​
    right, well, see, if you did that, it would make sense to get the 14-24 now. a 14-24 also makes sense with a d700. with a d3200, a DX UWA makes the most sense. i'm sure IQ would be pretty high with the 14-24 on a d3200, but you wouldnt be getting the most out of the lens. if the goal is good W/A shots, i would get a lens which gives you that capability on your current camera.
    My photographic interests are omnivorous. I will always want more than I can afford.​
    this is the problem right there. its a bit of a conceit IMO to ask for help than brush it off when it starts to make logical sense.
    Buying the D800 and a couple of good lenses, on the other hand, would represent a much stronger commitment. That is the primary reason for my vacillation.​
    so, this isn't about best IQ in an UWA or low-light ability, but fear of commitment? got news for you: the only way to overcome that is to commit. unless, of course, that was never your intention in the first place.
     
  34. Huh? I've used a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on Canon, and it wasn't all that hot (for the money). The 20mm f/1.8 is awful, in my brief experience. In contrast, I've heard mostly good things about the 12-24, although maybe I've only seen an update reviewed. (I have an 8mm Sigma fish-eye, and it's not bad, so I can't generalize here.)​
    i love that you can generalize than then add a disclaimer about how you're not generalizing, Andrew. way to go. anyhoo, i currently use a sigma 15-30 and 15mm fisheye on FX. they're both pretty good WRT IQ and capable performers in real-world situations. the 15-30 i got used for under $200, making it by far my best lens in terms of ROI. i got the 15 fisheye on closeout for $300 a few years back when all i had was DX bodies. i soon found out it didnt make much sense on DX, but when i went to FX all of a sudden it became a LOT more useful, especially in low-light situations.
    the 20/1.8 is a pre-digital lens which, by all accounts, doesnt do well on digital bodies at open apertures, but if Sigma updated the lens, i'd be interested for sure. lots of P-Netters say the 10-20 is an outstanding value WRT to price/performance, and the 8-16, while much more costly, has received excellent reviews.
    so let's keep in mind that all this is relative; canon's UWA offerings are generally considered inferior to nikons, but nikon has a couple of older primes which arent that great on digital. tokina also makes good UWAs, and for the money, the 16-28 looks like a winner, if you can live with a little CA.
     
  35. How well would the 14-24 do on the D3200 and the D90?​
    That was my original question--a technical question. I appreciate all comments that dealt with that question.
    I would still like to see some shots produced with the 14-24 on the D3200 or the D90--or on the D300, for that matter.
    --Lannie
     
  36. Lots of images come up if you search Flickr:
    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=d90%2014-24
     
  37. Thanks, Chris. There's no response to questions about image quality quite like those that offer images! Searching Flicker using that kind of search string (e.g., "d90 14-24" in this case) is certainly a lot easier and more productive than trying to view photos on Photo.sig by camera, and then trying to find out which might or might not have been shot with a given lens. I might be dense, Chris, but your way of proceeding never occurred to me.
    --Lannie
     
  38. Interestingly, Chris, I found almost as many using "d300 14-24" as you did with "d90 14-24"--but nary a one with "d3200 14-24." You would think that someone would have tried it and posted the result. In any case, you have answered my question very well with regard to how well full-frame or FX lenses do with crop sensor cameras--with regard to image quality. If I ask a question about how a given lens does with a given camera body, I am asking about image quality, not convenience--although the remarks dealing with filters were helpful as well.
    I also had not thought about the issue of a tripod mount on the lens in this case. That could be something worth considering as well.
    --Lannie
     
  39. Huh? I've used a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on Canon, and it wasn't all that hot (for the money).​
    Thanks for that observation, Andrew. I liked the Sigma 12-24 zoom on Canon (both FF and 1.6x crop sensor Canon), at least in terms of overall effect, but the version that I used was not too great in the corners. I would have expected the Sigma prime (the 14 f/2.8 that you refer to) to have done much better.
    Here is what Michael Reichmann had to say about that lens in general:
    [link]
    Sorry not to get back to you guys since last weekend, but my weekdays are a bear right now.
    This has been a useful thread to me. I appreciate all who took the time to respond.
    --Lannie
     

Share This Page