Nkon Wide Angle Lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by fishit, Nov 13, 2010.

  1. Hello, I was hoping for a suggestion on a Nikon widge angle lens for a D700, I need new FX lens.
    My D300 was stolen in Atlanta 11-02 and with it all my good lens and favorite backpack
    What I had for wide angle was a 10-20 Sigma and a 17-70MM Sigma Macro.
    What I have been looking at are listed below. I was hoping for some input.

    NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
    Nikon Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens
    Nikon 14MM Fisheye as well.

    Any suggestion would be appreciated from anyone would be helpfull
    Thanks ...
  2. I would pick the 17-35mm unless you really need the extra wide end of the 14-24mm. If you do mostly landscape, I would also consider the f4 16-35mm VR.
  3. bms


    Sorry for you loss! Plenty of recent threads on just this topic. I have the 14-24, great lens but it is very bulky. Depends
    on how you use it and what you use it for. 16-35 may be a good choice if you don't need f2.8. 17-35 otherwise. 14-24 if you really need 14-15mm
  4. If you especially want a fisheye, get the fisheye. Otherwise, don't even consider it.
    The 14-24mm f/2.8 is a great lens; I recommend that one if you particularly want a zoom.
  5. I dont think there is a 14mm fisheye, the 16mm is nice, but specialty, i have the 14-24mm 2.8 and i love it, i have heard the 17-35mm is good too.
  6. You don`t mention the assignments your new lens will have... hence I understand it`s not an specific one yet.
    The 14-24 is great, but it`s still too wide in the longer end. The zoom range is short, it doesn`t even reach 2x. Consider it a 14mm lens with "extended framing capability". If you`re looking for a fisheye or a 14mm lens, this could be the right choice.
    The fisheye is a very special lens; in my opinion, is great for extreme wide shots with people included in the frame... again, it`s my personal taste. I prefer it to the distortion provided by an ordinary 14mm in this specific case. I bet many others will disagree.
    Both lenses above will probably need to be supported by another moderate wide angle option.
    The 17-35 is a good-for-everything choice; sadly, there isn`t a G version to avoid any buyers doubt. If you can live with this version, it could be then most versatile one.
    As Leslie said, the other choice is the 16-35. Out of curiosity about this lens reviews; its performance reminds me the Canon 17-40/4.
  7. I would just get the 24-70/2.8 if you don't absolutely need something wider than 24mm. The 14-24 covers the super-wide angle range with excellent quality. These two lenses were designed specifically for FX with minimal compromise, but that isn't to say there is no compromise. These lenses are quite large and heavy. Personally I would just start with the 24-70 and see how that works for you, and maybe get a 24mm PC-E if your wide angle needs include landscape and architecture, rather than the 14-24 which is IMO a highly specialized lens which many people buy but few need.
  8. What Ilkka said, and if I were THEN buying an ultra-wide zoom, I'd be VERY careful about buying the 14-24. It is VERY wide, and the 17-35 or 16-35 suit most users better.
  9. Another vote for the 16-35 VR. I have it & a 24-70 2.8. Each has its place. Both accept PF filters if that's important to you.
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The 14-24mm/f2.8 has been discussed here many times. Optically it is excellent but it has many other drawbacks, including a limited zoom range and a bulging front element that is vulnerable and prevents you from using filters in any reasonable manner. (Lee is introducing a filter bracket that is very expensive and cumbersome; it is like trying to add wings to pigs so that they can fly. To me it makes absolutely no sense, but apparently some people want it.) I would only get the 14-24 if you really need something that wide. I have a 14-24 myself but that is not a lens for everybody.
  11. I use the Sigma 12-24mm and am very pleased with it. For the price (compared to Nikon's 15-24mm, it is a bargain). If you were happy with your Sigma 10-20mm (I had that lens and was very pleased with it), you will like the 12-24mm as I find it just as good.
  12. Do you want one of these lenses, or all three?
    If you are into superwideangle photography then I'd recommend the Nikon 14-24, and then the best standard zoom lens to go with it would be the Nikon 24-70/2.8.
    The Nikon 14mm, which I have, is not a fisheye. You can either get the Nikon 16mm full frame fisheye and/or a used manual focus Nikon 8mm f2.8 AIS circular fisheye, which I also have.
    If you are a superwideangle fanatic, which I am, then you have to also consider a Canon 5D II with a Canon 8-15mm fisheye zoom (when it comes out) and a Canon 17mm TS-E. Switching to Canon is not a big deal since all your Nikon equipment is gone.
  13. My post above should say 14-24mm, not 15-24mm.
  14. I too recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon auto focus zoom lenses. These two lenses plus the 70-200mm f/2.8 are known as the Three Digital Kings, The Holy Trinity, and the Magic Three.
  15. John, Canon has never been known as a maker of very high quality wide angles; what makes those new lenses any different? Interior photography is one of the main (sensible) applications for superwide angle lenses. A standard wide angle among 4x5 view camera users for this application is the 90mm, which is similar in angle of view to 24mm on 35mm/FX. Anything wider than that shifted by a significant amount leads to very odd looking images IMO. The 17 TS-E I am sure has some applications in interior work but even the 24 PC-E is capable of some extreme shifts leading to too skewed perspective to look natural.
  16. I am a big fan of the 14-24 f/2.8 and use it on my D700. I think the criticism discussed above is valid - the lens is large, heavy, does have a bulging front element, and may not be for everyone. But, if you want a ultra wide for building interiors, landscape, etc. it is excellent. The lens is incredible sharp, and the 2.8 speed is a big deal if you shoot in low light, even with a D700. And, on the D700, which is no small camera itself, I find the size not an issue. It balances nicely with the camera and is easy to use. I also have the 24-70 f/2.8, and that is my standard, "walk around" lens, but on a recent trip to Italy, I used the 14-24 a lot in the narrow streets of old towns and villages, cathedrals, etc.
  17. Ilkka, I was referring to superwideangle photography. I use 65mm on 4x5, 8mm circular fisheye and 14mm on 35mm/full frame. 90mm on 4x5 and 24mm on full frame is, as you say "standard" wideangle.
    Nitpicking between Nikon and Canon glass is really just that, nitpicking. I doubt the Canon 8-15 is going to have the sharpness and flare control that my Nikon 8/2.8 has but nevertheless it is still a very powerful tool and Nikon so far has chosen not to put a full frame circular back into production. I have used 17mm and 14mm lenses for landscapes and architecture for 22 years and the ability to place the horizon closer to the edge of the frame (instead of keeping it close to the centre) without distorting verticals in trees and buildings would be extremely significant to me, and perhaps to other photographers as well.
    To re-iterate, anyone interested in superwideangle photography (generally wider than 20mm on 35mm/full frame, owes it to themselves to consider the offerings from both Nikon and Canon, if they do indeed have the choice.
  18. John, I guess you use a different meaning (or definition) for what is a super-wide angle lens. It used to be so that 28mm was termed ultra- or super-wide (a long time ago). Today I believe most people would consider 20mm and 21mm super-wide on FX, including Nikon, B&H etc. Canon's online literature considers 24mm "entry into ultra-wide photography". BTW, to me 35mm is standard wide angle, not 24mm.
    But that's just terminology, of course.
  19. I've been pleased with the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR lens:
    1. The 16mm length is plenty wide for me on an FF camera- at 2mm wider, the 14-24mm didn't entice me on that count.
    2. I really like that the lens takes 77mm filters.
    3. Not that price was a deciding factor, but it didn't hurt that the 16-35mm was about $600 less than the 14-24mm.
    4. I like that the 16-35mm encompases the full range of wide angle I'd use on a FF camera.
    I also have a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, which is the lens I use most. I'd certainly recommend that lens too.
  20. @Steve I typed the wrong size on the Fish eye, thanks for the correction. @Jose I shoot everything and anything, @Ilkka I also plan on getting a 24-70F again, it was in my bag that was stolen.Great lens but I want wider which after reading all the good input leaves me wanting to buy both the 14-24 for my wide nature and city work.

    The 17-35mm would be for low light indoor and portrait work as well as nature shots. @Benjamin I looked at the 16-35 but want something better in low light. I shoot about everything and anything but birds and sports at long distances. I seldom go over 200MM when shooting.

    I do have a 50MM and a 70-300 lens that will work okay on the D700 and likely will pick up a used D300 and or a new D7000 some time after Christmas to use my DX lens on.
    @Everyone I very much appreciate the quality feed back on my lens choice and added information on the other lens. I had planned on going to FX camera sometime next year that is why I bought the 24-70mm in St. Maartin. But I planned on using my D300 as my back up and second camera. I still have a D200 and D70 in excellent condition but like the low light lens noise I had with the D300.
    I was hoping to get some good advise and the good people on Photo.net came through, thanks again to everyone for the knowledgeable advise and replies. Many thanks to one and all!!!
  21. P.S. I have nothing against bird or sports photography.
    I have a bad back and lens size can be a issue with stability.
    Some sports and a little bird work I have done has been close up
    Thanks again folks for some solid advise.
  22. I too recommend the Nikon 17-35mm wide angle zoom. I don't consider 24mm to be a very interesting wide angle, it's more of a semi-normal wide lens.
  23. @Dave Nikon 17-35mm wide angle zoom is what I likely will buy first and maybe the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR lens. Go to Sigma for my Wider angle such as the 12-24mm suggested.
  24. dennis, you can find good deals on used sigma 15-30s. that's another sleeper UWA for FX. but i think you're on the right track with 17-35.
  25. I've used the Nikon 17-35 and currently own the 14-24. Both are amazing lenses, but I've got a sleeper to recommend: the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. You can probably find one for $250-275 in excellent condition, and for indoor shooting, it will do all you ask. It's sharper than it should be for the price, and will also use the standard 77mm filters. Give it a shot, and if you don't like it, resell it. You'll definitely get your $$$ back.
  26. I have those three lenses. What's on my D700 the majority of the time is the 17-35. I do use the other two, but only occasionally.
    • The 16mm fisheye's images can be converted to rectilinear in post, but IQ isn't great that way, edge distortion is problematic (especially if people are in the shot, like indoors), and it can't use filters. As a matter of fact, I'm unimpressed with it as a fisheye. Sometimes I shoot QTVR panos, and I wish the IQ, flare resistance, and CA were better.
    • The 14-24 has stunning IQ and is very w i d e, but I find the zoom range limiting for regular use. It can't use screw-on filters (not all of my shots have open sky, and I like using a polarizer to limit glare). Lee is finally making a filter holder and rectangular filters (ND and ND grads) for that lens. The filters will undoubtedly be pricey, and given Lee's history, may be hard to get for some time. The 150mm holder is expensive ($367.60 at B&H) and bulky...definitely not for everyone. I've had this lens for over a year. When I need it, it's the shizzle.
    • IMO, Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35. The short end barrel distortion is awful, and f/4 doesn't help one single bit with low light, subject motion, narrowing the DoF, or brightening the viewfinder. But it's got VR (yawn). IMO, it's crippled, but it's cheaper than the 17-35 if you have to have a brand new lens.
    For best utility with great IQ, I'd recommend the 17-35. I got myself a nice used one last spring when everyone was dumping theirs to order a new 16-35. :)
  27. I'd love the Nikon 17-35mm, I've wanted one since they were introduced. When I bought a D700 in November, 2008, I bought a second hand Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 SP Aspherical zoom lens in mint condition on ebay for $150 from a local seller. I compared it against my Nikon 28mm and 35mm AI and AIS prime lenses and really couldn't tell the difference. There is a slight bit of vignetting at 17mm that is noticeable in the corners, but other than that, it's a stellar lens. I'm too satisfied with it to upgrade to the Nikon for $800+ more used. But someday I will have the funds and will upgrade. For now the Tamron does the job for me.
  28. Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35
    According to Nikon, the 16-35 isn't meant to be an update to the 17-35, but a new type/class of lens; this is stated in the press literature of the 16-35. The 14-24 and 24-70 have replaced the 17-35 in some countries but the latter is still available in others.
  29. Yes, I`m convinced that sooner or later there will be a "G" version of the 17-35/2.8. (According to what I think is their policy, it will happen when the saturation of the market were completed with the current choices... ).
  30. The OP might be interested in purchasing a subscription to diglloyd.com DAP, which presents a very extensive and, I would say, careful comparison of the current choices of Nikon FF ultra-wide, including 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35. I have used the 14-24 and own the 16-35, but I have never used the 17-35. I don't know to which extent the findings there might be due to sample variation in the 17-35 (the author tried two with same results, he says), but it appears to dramatically lack contrast and sharpness below f5.6 at most focal lengths, and is systematically behind the other two. I am not a sharpness fanatic by any means, but on the basis of what I see there, I would not consider the 17-35 a competitor for either the 14-24 or the 16-35 f4. I guess that 10 years in UWA design and manufacturing have not passed in vain.
    IMO, Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35. The short end barrel distortion is awful, and f/4 doesn't help one single bit with low light, subject motion, narrowing the DoF, or brightening the viewfinder. But it's got VR (yawn).​
    I would contend this statement in part. I agree that the distortion is strong at the wide end. Correctable, of course, but annoying indeed. The f4 comment is, I would say, somewhat excessive. DOF: in such focal range, except at 35mm, to reduce DOF by any meaningful amount you have to go below f2, a 24 1.4 is by far your best option if this aspect is what you are after. Low light, for static subjects, the VR in the 16-35 is all but a "yawn" thing, in fact it works surprisingly well (surprisingly for me, I was somewhat skeptical of VR in a WA lens). For moving subjects, of course, it does not help. But with modern FF Nikon cameras (I'm thinking D700 here) one should seriously think whether he prefers to go to one stop wider aperture or to rise ISO one stop. If diglloyd findings about the 17-35 and 16-35 are a guidance, I would definitely sooner use the 16-35 lens at f4 and 6400 ISO, than the 17-35 at 2.8 and 3200 ISO, with confidence that the quality loss would be less significant. Then, there is no substitute to fast glass and what do you do if you need 12800 ISO AND f2.8? True, but this is not exactly going to happen frequently I'd say.
    In my experience, a gain of one stop (be it in lens max aperture or high ISO noise alike) is not highly significant in the real world, in the sense that is hardly going to make your life much easier or expand significantly your possibilities. It is of course always welcome. The 16-35 f4 is a compromise lens as any other is. The 14-24 compromises on size, weight, range and cost, but has impressive optical quality, the 16-35 compromises on size (it is indeed large), max aperture and distortion, but is very sharp, has a very useful focal range, is less expensive and has VR (which if your subject is static, helps much more than one stop), and is lighter... I would not call either crippled, just cut for different sets of needs, but both in a reasonable way.
  31. From everything I have read and heard about the 14-24 the lens is quite unique and can produce some fantastic photos. But after talking and reading I chose a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR stabilized ultra-wide zoom. One reason VR, and a trusted friend who knew my work suggested it. I have to think of cost as well as I rebuild. I wanted to go to FX next year, the thief changed my plans.
    I still own a couple DSLR cameras as well as several good DX lens. I am just now just learning the FX format equipment. @Luca, thanks for the link I will read further. I tend to talk to people about what I want to and like to do and based on my budget they suggest Lens. Gary Petersen is a good friend who knows his cameras gives good advise. I also need the feed back people were kind enough to provide here for me to better understand the equipment. I plan to get 17-35 and a 24-70 next year.
    I have learned a lot while reading through this thread. Not only about the original question but the added insight and willing to help was/is pretty impressive. The nice people who took the time to give input and experience with the equipment, and their questions to me. Thanks to all, it speaks very well for the Photo.net community.
  32. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I only have limited experience with the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, but as far as I know, the main problem is that it is poor at 16mm. If you can zoom out a bit to like 18mm, it should become much better and on FX, 18mm is still very wide.
  33. I've just spent a day researching whats available in the 18-21 range for a D700. Primes? Yes...the fat zooms are just that... fat, heavy and expensive. Even the good ones like the 20-35 have significant barrel distortion at 20mm which you would have to correct. Everyone is obsessed with zooms...but landscape photography is a considered and slow exercise, requiring careful composition, almost always careful manual focus and longer exposures at smaller f stops. You are in the f8-f11 for DOF, so thats another reason to go primes...small, beautifully made and sharp.
    Here are some delectable lenses and so sharp as:
    Nikon: 18/f2.8AFD (Moose Peterson recommends after a long field test), 20/f2.8AFD & AIs, 20/f4 AI (considered the best and is also the smallest).
    Zeiss F mount: 18/f3.5, 21/f2.8 (superior to Nikon primes possibly in sharpness, corner to corner, but you pay $$)
    The pick out of all these is probably the 20/f4 AI. And there are a few on ebay up to $600. You would then have a keeper that will only go up in value.
  34. Shun, I would not say that the 16-35 is weak at 16mm in my experience (and for my own copy of course). So far what I see is that the lens is really impressive between 20 and 28 (unsurprising, center of the range), a bit weaker at 16, but not by much unless you look to the extreme corners. I would say its weakest spot is 35mm, where it loses some bite. It is not bad by any means, but there I would definitely tend to use my 35 f2, which at f4 - 5.6 has a sharpness the 16-35 cannot quite match. The main limit at 16, instead, is the heavy distortion, which actually turns it into a 17mm once you have corrected for it and cropped. But this is an example of what I was saying before about compromises: I mostly use the 20-24 range, have a better (and small, and portable) alternative at 35, and have not all this pressing need for 16-18mm, so the compromises the lens has fit me perfectly.
    Shadforth: if you look at my gallery you'll see I'm mostly a prime shooter. The only focal lengths at which I kept using zooms after my "conversion" to primes are the wide angle ones. This comes from a simple fact: Nikon WA primes are not so good, and not very fast, unless of course you think about the tilt-shift or the new 1.4: I have tried the 24 1.4 and since then I lost my peace of mind because that lens is just fantastic: but I cannot afford it.
    But I own since the film era a 20 2.8 AFD, loved it on film, but it is just VERY disappointing on digital. My 18-70 and 12-24 both outperformed it easily on DX. The 12-24 outperforms it even on FX, despite being a DX lens (it covers FX from 18 upwards, although the corner quality is poor). The 16-35 runs circles around it. Digital sensors are picky with wide angles, and the design of the 20 2.8 is 20 years old. Longer focal lengths have stood the change much better (I love my 35/2). So I'm all in the "primes are sharper" camp, but it is just not true at these short focal lengths with old designs. Then again, shot at f8 or f11 I guess the 20 2.8 holds its own, but this is not what I do most of the time (but you mention landscape so it is a different story).
  35. The VR is a factor for me and I liked what I saw on several websites with examples of the 16-35. It is not a Prime 2.8f but it seems to have other qualities that make it worth the money. I will be expanding my FX collection and even DX is a real deal comes along. I think both have some merit.
    B&H kind of missed ship date on the 16-35 and I wanted to test the lens at a Balloon glow by Mirror Lake in Eden Park. Hope it is here by Friday, it will be a good test. Abe's will have my 28-300 tomorrow even though I put incorrect data in the ship to field. I will post some Sunday for people to see how it looks. I hope to use the 16-35, lets see if B&H comes thru.

Share This Page