Ultra-Wide FX/Film Zoom

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ben_hutcherson, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. see my first post
  2. I also have to choose a super-wide for FX. There is a photo.net thread here that would be helpful to read. Since one of the lenses you are considering is the Nikon 14mm f/2.8, I would pay particular attention to Ilkka Nissila's comments. Bjørn Rørslett has a somewhat more positive view of that lens, expressed here, and a very positive review of the Nikon 14-24mm.
  3. Just about is not saying they are entirely equal, right? Look at Mr. Mansurov’s review on Photographylife.com and Dpreview.com’s conclusions. Both arrive at the conclusion that it is a serious alternative that holds it own very well. Same goes for some tests done by respectable Swedish photo sites/magazines.

    Lord Voldemort (Mr. Rockwell) claimed the 16-35/4 VR was sharper than the 14-24/2.8, but his review was not one of those I thought of when I wrote my previous post.
  4. Okay, so here's the plan:

    I've looked at everything suggested here, and have ultimately decided that I should PROBABLY bite the bullet and get the 14-24mm 2.8. I've been doing some number crunching, and think I can swing one of the used examples that KEH has.

    With that said, before I commit to it, I'm going to rent one from the local camera store. I can rent it for a week for ~$100, and it seems to me like that would be a good way to test it before committing to it.

    I'm going to wait until at least next weekend, or rather hopefully when the leaves have come out a bit better.

    Of course, the alternative is to buy and return if I don't like, but then I always hate doing retailers that way.
  5. Until I got the Sony FE 12-24/4G just recently, I avoided the lenses with bulbous front elements that don't allow the use of a clear or UV filter (I find those much easier to clean than curved front lenses). The ability to use a 77mm filter and the image stabilization where the main reasons for me to get the Nikon 16-35/4; a lens I am still quite fond of. The problem is that in order to go wider, the bulbous front element can't be avoided.

    With regard to the 14-24: what gives me pause now is that all of a sudden they seem to be popping up used everywhere; makes me wonder what people are getting rid of them for and what they are replacing them with. As already mentioned, if I were to replace my 16-35, I'd be looking at mainly two options: Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC (mainly for the image stabilization, not so much for the f/2.8) and the Sigma Art 12-24/4 (mostly for the range extension with regard to the 14-24).
  6. is that all of a sudden they seem to be popping up used everywhere;

    They are probably getting a 14mm, 16-35s/15-30s etc etc as you suggest, or selling off Nikon stuff altogether and going mirrorless. While the 14-24mm was the great wide angle zoom on release, it is not longer so special as other makers have caught up or even surpassed it. It is a also a large beast which makes selling it a benefit for getting everything in your camera bag.

  7. The most recent ultrawide of note is the Sigma 14mm f1.8. That's the one I'm after. I don't want the bulk of the f2.8 ultrawide zooms, and have been getting into astro work. Will probably end up selling my Nikon 20mm f1.8G, even though it's a great lens. I just don't think I need anything between 14mm and the 24mm PC-E I already have. I can make perfect pano stitches with the 24mm PC-E that act give similar results to a zoom in that range without the extra bulk. I find the movements of the 24mm T/S much more versatile than having an ultrawide zoom. I use them a lot!


    Kent in SD
  8. i sold my tokina 16-28 and it was really really good! i bought the sigma art 24 which is sharper, but is fixed. anyone can argue either way. i do miss that lens when i want to go wider. but i have the samyang 12 which is excellent also.. the tokina at 16 is wonderful: [​IMG]GEO_1237 by BG Day, on Flickr
  9. You can get a used Nikon 18-35 AF-D fx lens used for about $200 -235 in ggood condition. its a pretty good lens.
    I was using it till I found a Nikon 16-35 F4 VR used in mint condition for $ 715.
    both of these fit your budget and the 16-35 is a fantasic lens
  10. Well, I did it...bit the bullet and bought a 14-24 from KEH, so provided that I'm happy with the lens I'll consider this settled.

    Thanks again to everyone for your advice and input.
  11. For $500 it's hard to beat the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. Bought a refurbished lens a few years ago for less than $500.
  12. Thanks for telling us, Ben. Best of luck with it. It's an exceptional lens, even if the field curvature drives me nuts (and if Nikon make an update, this is high on my requested list of things to fix). Since you were already at 18mm, I think going 14mm or wider (or, admittedly, stitching to get there with the 19mm T/S) is wise - 16mm is obviously a difference, but not that much. I'm sure you'll have fun trying to keep your shadow out of photos, like I do.
  13. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    He may have trouble keeping his boots out of his photos!
  14. Boots are a problem. I'm worrying that eventually my belly will be a problem too. :)
    Sandy Vongries likes this.
  15. Thanks.

    Spending this much on what will be a specialty lens was a tough pill to swallow, but at the same time the only real downside that the numerous reviews mention are the size and weight.

    As you said, Andrew, I really felt like I'd be missing out if I spent a bunch of money on a lens that ONLY went to 16mm. That's still wider than anything I have(aside from the 12-24, which is sort of useable albeit with terrible corner distortion, at that length) but I think I'd always regret not having bought the wider lens.

    Even an 18mm is a challenge to use, but I've managed to take what I think are some good photos with it. That's the problem with a wide angle "addiction"-you always want more :) . I get some strange looks even with the 18mm when people see me standing a few feet away from a building or whatever I'm trying to photograph.

    For all I know, the 14mm may end up being physically dangerous to me when I'm walking and looking through the viewfinder without actually watching my steps :)

    Also, thank goodness for the in-finder level on the D800-it's the first camera I've had with this feature. I've always had a bit of a "left tilt" when hand holding 35mm anyway, I know that even at 24mm an un-level camera can lead to some strange looking photographs. I should probably also find an E screen for my F5-most of my other film cameras that are fully compatible with this lens have on-demand grid lines.
  16. I'll second the merits of grid lines and the in-camera level (although I still fairly often end up fixing in post if I'm shooting in a hurry - I have mild envy for Pentax's sensor mount, which I believe has enough flexibility to fix mild tilts pre-shot). And yes, looking through a 14mm while turning is a somewhat disorienting experience. Remember that when you're taking a photo on a cliff edge. (One of my first uses of the 14-24 was at the Grand Canyon. I didn't fall in.)

    It's not a perfect lens - the field curvature and lack of easy filtering being the biggest issues I'm aware of, although it certainly has distortion at 14mm too. DxO fixes up most of the issues for me, at least if I stop down a bit for depth of field. (It's not soft at f/2.8, just don't use that for landscape.) The front is also a little flare-prone - several shots I took recently involved me shooting one-handed, trying to block the sun from hitting the lens without getting my hand in frame. Still, all lenses that focal length are somewhat limited, so don't sweat the small stuff. I just want you to keep your expectations reasonable!
  17. Well, the lens is in hand.

    Yes, it is a monster, but it's actually not as heavy as I'd been prepared for it to be. It feels like nothing compared to something like the first generation 20mm pre-AI lens mounted on an F or F2. The lens is quite well balanced and easy to handle on my D800.

    I'll post some photos after I've had a chance to get outside and actually use the lens. Just playing around in my office, I can pretty safely say that it's everything I'd hoped for.
  18. Glad to hear you're happy, Ben. Enjoy your new toy!

    (And yes - it's big by the standards of a 20mm f/4, but it's no 6mm f/2.8; in a bag with a 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 300mm f/4 non-PF and 200-500 it tends to be the lens I wedge in a corner - and I can certainly shoot one-handed with it. I've been know to stick it on a camera with a remote release and dangle it on the end of a monopod for crowd shots. The only time I've noticed the weight was when it - and a Pentax 645 - dropped on my head out of an aircraft overhead bin, because Quantas had made me re-pack into an inadequate bag and someone opened the bin carelessly. Fortunately the 14-24 was in its carry case...)
  19. Color me confused: even the heaviest 20mm lens (20/3.5 UD) weighs only 390g, which together with an F2 (840g) is just 230g more than the 14-24 weighs alone. Add the D800 and the combo amounts to almost 2kg (almost 1 1/2lbs heavier than the heaviest 20/F2 combo). I would understand had you compared to the Nikon 13/5.6 (which weighs about 1.2kg), but not with a 20 as an example.
    Which bag is that Andrew? I doubt I could fit that in any bag I have (and certainly none I wish to carry around).
  20. Admittedly I'm not comparing them side by side-the 20mm UD I have is sitting on an F Photomic Tn on a shelf at home, while I have the 14-24 and D800 here with me at work.

    I suppose the difference is perceived since you have to admit that the density of the two combinations is quite different.

    None the less, I wouldn't call the D800/14-24 combo light, but it's certainly manageable and not off-putting.

Share This Page