Noob question - wide angle lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by edward_mcausher, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. I apologize in advance for the silly questions, but I am just starting to delve into the world of photography. My question is about wide angle lenses on the D300s. What is an ideal wide angle lens? I read on kent rockwell that the 14-24mm f/2.8 may be a waste of money on the d300s because the d300s can't hit the ultra wide angles that the lens is made for. This lens seem to be the top of the line wide angle lens and I'd like to say its the lens for me. What are your thoughts?
     
  2. This is all driven by how you'll be using it, whether you see yourself moving to FX later, etc. 14mm on an FX body is very, very wide. The 14-24/2.8 is an exotic lens, in that sense. On a DX body like the D300S, it's pleasantly wide ... but it's very large, heavy, expensive, and a bit delicate in the sense that it has a protruding front element that precludes your use of filters.

    If you think you'll be sticking with DX for a while, I'd get a Sigma 10-20 HSM, a Tokina 11-16, or the Nikon 10-24, all meant for DX bodies. They're all good lenses, and you'll be able to save yourself thousand bucks or so, to buy that other stuff that a just-starting-in-photography person ends up needing (a real tripod, some lighting gear, etc).

    What other lens(es) do you have at this point?
     
  3. On a full frame camera, this lens is very wide, but with the smaller DX sensor of the D300s, it "only" gives you the equivalent of 21-36mm. (If that is what Ken is talking about.) It used to be 20 to 24mm (full frame) was all you needed, but now, everyone wants really wide. You could go for the Nikon 10-24mm or 12-24mm DX lens. They are not quite as good optically, however.
     
  4. Probably by coincidence, "Kent" is correct. 14mm is much less wide than many fine lenses available for a D300s. It is a heavy lens, with a great big bulging front element which is terribly exposed to damage even with a lens hood and which cannot be protected by a filter.
    But you haven't told us how you plan to use this lens. If you want a wide angle but don't mind the weight, the expense, you don't need focal lengths wider than 14mm, and you won't be terribly upset by damaging the front element, it probably is the lens for you.
     
  5. Edward, i have the 14-24mm and i use it with my D700, i also have a D300 and i have the 12-24mm f4 wide angle for that body.
    its an amazing lens and sits on my D300 most of the time. It also accepts 77mm filters for landscape use.
     
  6. Just because a lens is "top of the line" doesn't really mean it is the best lens for you. The other posters have raised some very valid points. Another issue to consider is what you intend to do with it. I would advise you to read "Kent's" article How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses. I don't normally recommend KR's site to newbies because he interjects a lot of his own opinions into his articles (many of which I disagree with wholeheartedly) and you have to be able to filter out the bad from the good info, but that particular article is actually pretty good and explains how to effectively use UWA's in-depth.
     
  7. I read on kent rockwell that the 14-24mm f/2.8 may be a waste of money on the d300s because the d300s can't hit the ultra wide angles that the lens is made for.​
    Absolute hogwash!
    I'm shooting a 10-24mm Tamron on my D300S with excellent results at all focal lengths.
    I also have the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 which likewise performs flawlessly at all focal lengths.
    - Leigh
     
  8. Ken, no t, Ken Rockwell, also known here and elsewhere as the Hypnoken.
    Rockwell (no known relation to Norman or George Lincoln) is worth a periodic visit just for the fun of it. Sometimes he has great ideas, sometimes terrible ones; but the trouble is that he doesn't seem to know the difference, and a naive reader can't usually tell either.
    If you want ignorant and arrogant opinions, you don't have to go the the Hypnoken for them. Heck you can find them here. However, at this site, the problem is that the arrogant and clueless don't usually get away without being challenged (as many of us can attest from personal experience). :)
     
  9. There are a handful of things that Ken has written that are very very good. His comparison of wide zooms for DX is one of them.
    He actually found the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 to be the best of all that range, but it has a very limited range, too limited for some people. I love mine, but you should look at the Tokina 12-24, too. Probably the best "range" for these lenses. 12mm is PLENTY wide, and 24mm on the other end gets you into WAY more useful territory than my 11-16.
    The 14-24 is not, imho, a good match for DX at all, for a lot of reasons that have been discussed here. No filters, 14 is VERY different from 12, or 11, or 10, and those focal lengths are readily available for DX.
     
  10. I don't have this lens and I will not be purchasing it even though I have D700. It is much wider than I need, to expensive, heavy, large and will not take filters. It should deliver impressive results though. I don't think is a very good value using it with the DX format though since you would only be using the center and not getting the full corner to corner sharpness this lens has been reviewed as having. 21 to 36mm might be something I would be interested in with the FX format, kind of ironic. Still if a FoV or 21-36mm relative is what you are looking for in DX and don't use filters and have the budget I suspect you will find no pixel peeking better lens. I would purchase one of the suggested lenses in Matt's post above. Spend the rest on a great tripod setup or class or trip.
     
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    There are a handful of things that Ken has written that are very very good. His comparison of wide zooms for DX is one of them.​
    Peter, I am afraid that is not the case.
    As I mentioned to you before, take a look at "our own" Doug Santo's super wide images, and it should be clear that KR has plenty to learn about how to use wide-angle lenses himself. Doug Santo regularly posts his Southern California church images to our weekly Wednesday image threads; many of those are captured with an FX-format D700 with the 14-24mm zoom @ 14mm. You can find Doug's portfolio here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=969823
    Back to the OP's question: Even on a DX-format body such as thd D300S, the 14-24mm/f2.8 is quite wide already. However, there is no such thing as an "ideal" lens. While the 14-24 is an extremely well made lens, it has a bulging front element so that it is not practical to put any filter in front; that front element is also vulnerable such that I prefer to use mine indoors. Moreover, its zoom range is very limited.
    On a DX body, I would suggest something like the Nikon 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX. It is designed for DX and gives you a considerably wider zoom range than the 14-24; it is also a lot less expensive. The 10-24mm accepts 77mm front filters. However, those Nikon super-wide DX zooms tend to be much better on their long end than on their short end. If you get the 10-24, I would try not to use the widest 2mm and treat it more like a 12-24mm zoom.
    There are even more less expensive alternatives from Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron, but since the OP was talking about the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, the Nikon versions should be within price range. Please keep in mind that the only one of those DX zooms that gives you a constant f2.8 maximum aperture is the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8.
     
  12. OK. Enough conjecture...
    This shot was taken with a Tamron 10-24mm f/3.4-4.5 @ 10mm on a D300S.
    [​IMG]
    A larger image is available at http://baypixonline.com/img/s10/v17/p182050914-5.jpg
    The EXIF data confirms the camera and lens.
    - Leigh
     
  13. bms

    bms

    The 14-24 is a cool lens. I thought I "had to have it" (for an FX body) and sprung for the $1700 or so it cost then. While it takes amazing pictures (when used right), I have rarely used it - not necessarily because of its "wideness" but because of the huge for element and I sometimes wished I had gone with the 17-35. That being said, 1) it is optically very very good 2) do you REALLY need wider than 21mm (the equivalent on a DX body) and 3) I now use it for panoramas at 14mm, where it is a lot of fun.
    If you are sure that you'll never (in the near future) upgrade to FX, then I think you can save yourself some money and get any of the aforementioned DX lenses. If you want FX and shoot wider than 16mm, this lens is a must, IMHO.
    Here is my example (not coming close to Santo's)
    00XaY7-296179584.jpg
     
  14. Wow! Thanks so much everybody!!!! The main purpose for my lens will be landscapes. Although I mostly take pictures of my daughter now, and would love to get some more background in those as well at times. Right now I keep the 50mm f/1.8D AF on my camera at all times, I read its a great lens for portraits. Thanks so much everybody! This is a great site, I look forward to learning a lot from all of you!
     
  15. The 14-24, or even 10, 11 and 12mm zooms, are not for one "delving" into photography. Consider a used Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5 ED-IF or a new Nikon 16-35/3.5-5.6 AF-S ED VR DX.
    Learning how to compose images effectively with lenses wider than 24mm on film/full frame and 16mm on crop bodies takes time and perserverance. I recommend shooting at normal wideangle focal lengths before deciding if you need to go ultrawide.
    Save the megabucks for your normal and telephoto range lenses.
     
  16. I do agree with Peter Hamm. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is the sharpest and faster wide lens out there. The only problem is as Peter said, it is too narrow in its range that you may not like it but it will give you a constant f/2.8 through the whole range. But the Tokina 12-24 is also a great lens and with more range than the first one and may be the right choice is the first one ( Tokina 11-16 ) does not give you the range that you need. Because I do have the Nikon 16-85 mm VR, then my first choice is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 so I will be set from 11 to 85 mm with 2 lenses even though, the Nikon is not a f/2.8, but still it is a great lens for most shooting occasions. I also have the Nikon 50 f/1.8 and Nikon 35 f/1.8 for ambient light shooting just in case.
     
  17. Also, keep in mind how you'll be using the lens. The 14mm prime will blow all the other lenses out of the water at your widest apertures, but at f/8 you'll be hard pressed to see a difference between that and a less expensive lens without using a chart.
    Tamron's 10-24 has a $100 rebate right now. If you're not sure what you want, I'd just buy that. You'll only have $350-$450 into it after you get your money back, and you could easily sell it for almost that much once the rebate period ends. Think of it like an inexpensive rental, with the option to buy. If you're usually in the middle apertures, you can either keep the Tamron or sell it and upgrade to the Nikon 10-24. If you're somewhat wide the Nikon 12-24 is excellent, and if you need lots more light, the 14 might be worth a look.
    As a for instance, I use an inexpensive long zoom lens - and old 70-300 ED. They're usually $100-$200 on ebay. It's terrible wide open, but since I only use that lens outside during the day, I never see its flaws. If I were shooting sports with it, I woud replace it. Since I'm not, there's absolutely no reason for me to spend the extra money.
     
  18. as far as i'm concerned, the tokina 12-24 is an ideal UWA for DX. it's only $400 new, which is a great deal for that lens.
    if you want a little wider, the nikon 10-24 and the sigma 10-20 are good for DX. i wouldnt recommend the 11-16 unless you already have experience with UWAs and know you can live with the shorter zoom range.
    a good entry-level lens for landscape is the 16-85 VR, which is a very useful range on DX.
     
  19. Ihave had Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 DX and it's been great, I use it all the time...bought mine used for 600€...box and the works...
     
  20. KR is correct. The d300 is a DX camera...it has a small sensor, so the 12-24 becomes an 18-36 on a D300.
    I recommend the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 as good quality and a lot cheaper. I had one on my D300 and its was very very good. Some will say they have variable quality, but mine was perfect.
     
  21. Absolute hogwash!
    I'm shooting a 10-24mm Tamron on my D300S with excellent results at all focal lengths.
    I also have the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 which likewise performs flawlessly at all focal lengths.​
    Ummm... the 14-24 is FX and the 10-24 and 12-24 are DX... apples and oranges. I also have a Nikon 12-24 that I enjoy using but I would not consider a 14-24 for my D60. As Carl pointed out, the 14-24 is equivalent to a 21-36 when used on DX so it would not give the ultra-wide results we're talking about here. I would consider it for my film Nikons, except that with filters ruled out that lens is best relegated to FX digital.
    OK. Enough conjecture...
    This shot was taken with a Tamron 10-24mm f/3.4-4.5 @ 10mm on a D300S.​
    Which proves what? That is a DX lens. The 14-24 is an FX lens which creates a much larger image circle, much of which is wasted in a DX camera like a D300. It would not give results anything like what you just posted. Please read up about sensor format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography#Sensor_size_and_angle_of_view
     
  22. the 14-24 is FX and the 10-24 and 12-24 are DX... apples and oranges.​
    Wrong.
    The image size is determined by the sensor, not the lens. Any 14mm lens will produce the same size image on a DX sensor, assuming its image circle is large enough to cover the entire sensor.
    Kindly study some basic optics.
    Which proves what? That is a DX lens.​
    Yes, it is a DX lens, on a DX camera, specifically on the D300S, which is what the OP is asking about.
    - Leigh
     
  23. What lenses do you currently own? If you have the kit lens, that's already considered a proper wide angle at 18mm. 10mm on dx is considered ultra-wide.
    What is an ideal wide angle lens?
    One that you can put to good use? My widest lens is the 16-85vr, very occasionally I want to go wider e.g. really tight interior places but by far and wide 16mm (~24mm on fullframe) is sufficient for what I need. I used to own the sigma 10-20, hardly ever used it.
     
  24. Wrong.
    The image size is determined by the sensor, not the lens. Any 14mm lens will produce the same size image on a DX sensor, assuming its image circle is large enough to cover the entire sensor.​
    Image size per se is not the issue here, but angle of view is. When you crop an ultra-wideagle image down it's no longer ultra-wideangle. That's what happens when you put the 14-24 on a DX camera, because the sensor on the DX camera does not get out far enough out from the middle of the image to capture the angle of view that the same lens would produce on the sensor (or film) of an FX camera. In other words, the D300 won't "hit" the extremely wide angle views that the 14-24 can produce, when using that particular lens.
    Which proves what? That is a DX lens.​
    Yes, it is a DX lens, on a DX camera, specifically on the D300S, which is what the OP is asking about.​
    Here's what the OP asked:
    I apologize in advance for the silly questions, but I am just starting to delve into the world of photography. My question is about wide angle lenses on the D300s. What is an ideal wide angle lens? I read on kent rockwell that the 14-24mm f/2.8 may be a waste of money on the d300s because the d300s can't hit the ultra wide angles that the lens is made for. This lens seem to be the top of the line wide angle lens and I'd like to say its the lens for me. What are your thoughts?​
    He asked two questions: best wide angle for his DX camera, AND is the 14-24 a good choice for that camera. I was addressing the second question, rather obviously. There is no debate here over whether you can get extremely wide-angle photos on the D300 with the right lens, except in your own posts.
     

Share This Page