Nkon Wide Angle Lens

<p>Hello, I was hoping for a suggestion on a Nikon widge angle lens for a D700, I need new FX lens.<br /> My D300 was stolen in Atlanta 11-02 and with it all my good lens and favorite backpack<br />What I had for wide angle was a 10-20 Sigma and a 17-70MM Sigma Macro.<br /> What I have been looking at are listed below. I was hoping for some input.<br /><br /> NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED<br />Nikon Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens<br />Nikon 14MM Fisheye as well.<br>

<br /> Any suggestion would be appreciated from anyone would be helpfull<br /> Thanks ...</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>If you especially want a fisheye, get the fisheye. Otherwise, don't even consider it.</p>

<p>The 14-24mm f/2.8 is a great lens; I recommend that one if you particularly want a zoom.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You don`t mention the assignments your new lens will have... hence I understand it`s not an specific one yet.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> Both lenses above will probably need to be supported by another moderate wide angle option.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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 <em>no</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Do you want one of these lenses, or all three?</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>My post above should say 14-24mm, not <strong>15</strong>-24mm.</p>

<p>

<p>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.</p>

</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But that's just terminology, of course.</p>

<p>I've been pleased with the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR lens: </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>2. I really like that the lens takes 77mm filters. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>4. I like that the 16-35mm encompases the full range of wide angle I'd use on a FF camera.</p>

<p>I also have a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, which is the lens I use most. I'd certainly recommend that lens too.</p>

<p>@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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

@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.</p>

<p>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!!!</p>

 

<p>P.S. I have nothing against bird or sports photography.<br>

I have a bad back and lens size can be a issue with stability.<br />Some sports and a little bird work I have done has been close up<br>

Thanks again folks for some solid advise.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>@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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>