Wide angle lens for digital

I need to make a decision on a wide angle lens (for digital). I'd

like to get somewhere between 10-14mm. I also frequently use a

polarizer and/or a grad ND. From what I've been reading, my only real

option is the Nikon 12-24. My preference would be a faster prime that

allows filters to be mounted. There doesn't seem to be one in the

focal range I'm looking for. Before I make a final decision, I just

wanted to make sure I haven't missed something. This lens will be

used on my D2X and D70. If there's one out there that meets my needs

and can also be used on my film body (doubtful), that's even better.

Nikon makes a AF 14/2.8D ED-RF. Its well rated on the

Nikon D1 by <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>Bjorn

Rorslett</u></a> but not as well on the D1X and probably not on

the D2X.

There's the 10.5mm fisheye, and the 3rd party ultra wide zooms: the tokina 12-24/4, tamron 11-18, and sigma 10-20.

Hi, Laurie,

 

I think you have already found the answer. If you are going to mount filters in front of the lens, DX12-24 would be the only option among the Nikon lineup that will suit your needs for DSLR (10-14mm range). Similar lenses are made by Tamron (11-18mm), Tokina (12-24mm) and Sigma (10-20) but all are no faster than the Nikon or even slower. Besides, all including Nikon are not intended for use on the film bodies.

 

Nikon may produce faster super-wide primes eventually, but unfortunately there seems to be no other choice currently.

 

However, the DX12-24 is a very well reputed lens and hope you enjoy shooting with it.

 

Regards,

 

Akira

Except in some pretty limited circumstances a Polarizer is going to give you uneven results

in the 10-14mm focal length range using a DSLR (any brand of DSLRexcept maybe the 4/

3rds foramt cameras, and the Nikon sensor is larger than that format)-- the angle of view

captured by lenses in that focal length range is greater than the polarization angle. The

shortest focal length lens where you'll have even polarization across the entire frame is

roughly 18 to 20mm.

My solution to using graduated filters with lenses in that range is just to hold the filter (I

use 100x150mm Lee Filters) up againstthe front of the lens' filter ring.

Thanks for the responses!

 

David, Thanks for the link! The review was helpful. I've been to that site before but forgot about it. Lots of great information!

 

Ellis, It hadn't even occured to me that there would be an issue with a polarizer and the angle of view. Thanks for pointing that out! I use a grad ND more often and also hand hold the filter (too lazy to fuss with the holder). Would it be a problem hand holding the filter with lenses that have a built in (non retractable)lens hood?

Laurie, the 12-24 DX should be your answer. Other choices such as the Nikkor 14mm/f2.8 prime or Sigma's 12-24 that can cover the full 24x36mm frame have convex front elements. You cannot use a conventional front filters on those lenses.

 

The 12-24 DX is similar to the 17-35 on film bodies in terms of angle of view. I hand hold GND filters too and it shouldn't be a problem in either case, although in digital, I don't use a GND as often any more.

Thanks Shun. That's the lens I'll likely buy. I just wish it was a bit faster. For landscape work, I won't miss the speed. I just would have preferred a faster lens for low light candids. In photography, there are rarely "one size fits all" solutions.

Occasionally I shoot some weddings also. However, I rarely use the 12-24 for that purpose because it is simply too wide. I might use it to shoot a few "overall" shot inside the church while the wedding is in progress, for example. I also have the 17-55/2.8 DX which is great for weddings. Therefore, the 12-24 is really a 12-17mm for me; for anything else, I have faster lenses.

 

A 12-24mm/f2.8 DX would have been really big and expensive, and I have doubts about its quality wide open.

Besides the Nikon 14mm f/2.8, there is the Tamron 14mm SPAF f/2.8. Both of these take rear filters and are full frame. I bought the Tamron before the 12-24 DX f/4 existed. Forget polarizers on lenses this wide. Holding a large ND in front works for 1.5x crop DSLR. Image quality wise, the 12-24 DX is every bit as good as either 14mm prime stopped down to f/4.

Quoting Yaron Kidron: Yaron Kidron , aug 12, 2005; 02:52 a.m.

There's the 10.5mm fisheye, and the 3rd party ultra wide zooms: the tokina 12-24/4, tamron 11-18, and sigma 10-20.

 

========

 

The Tokina AT-X 12-24mm zoom is DYNAMITE but it won't work on a full frame / film body. It's designed to work (ideally) on 1.6X crop factor cameras.

 

But the images ARE fantastic. Worth the money!

 

Rgds,

Shun, Craig, and Tom, Thanks for your responses. Tom, I considered the Tokina. I've read some great things aboout it. Unfortunately, I've also read some terrible things about it. Either some folks are just much pickier than others or there seems to be a significant difference from sample to sample. I don't know if it's a QC issue at Tokina or just very different tolerances to CA. While I'd love to save $500, I'm a bit uneasy with the mixed reviews. I'll be ordering from B&H so I don't have the luxury of testing the lens in the store (unless I fly to NY). Does anyone here have any additional thoughts on the Tokina?

The 12-24 DX can also be used from 18-24mm on a 35mm film camera without vignetting, in case you are interested in using it with a film body.

The third party wide angles have legendary quality control (watch for edge sharpness). The 12-24 Nikkor is actually an inexpensive lens for what it is. For a D2X I wouldn't think about anything else.

Laurie, don't limit your options to autofocus lenses. I seldom find it necessary to fiddle with fine focusing ultra wides at distances beyond 10 or so feet away. The hyperfocal setting and a reasonably small aperture, even f/5.6, on a manual focus lens is just as quick as using an AF lens.

 

If your needs include quick focusing up close - say, at weddings and social events - sure, the AF lens might be a better choice. For landscapes, scenics, architecture, interiors, etc., manual focus is usually good enough. And they're good values right now.

 

Some ultrawides, at the manual focus varieties, included built-in filters. My 17mm f/3.5 Tamron Adaptall includes built-in 81B, 80B and Y2 filters selectable via a ring in front of the focus ring, clickstopped like an aperture ring. Limited selection, but very handy. Unfortunately my lens doesn't have threads to accomodate more filters. Probably just as well because they'd have to be fairly large in diameter.

 

An alternative for homebrewing filters is to clip them out of sheets and place them behind the lens.

Along Lex's line of suggestion, the best WA lens would be the 16mm f/3.5 Nikkor. No visible CA and super sharp! Has built in filters as well. Works superbly on my D70. Don't know about the d2x.

The 16/3.5 also works quite well on the D2X, but here the presence of some CA is evident. Not too bad and easily fixable, though.

Well, even a 16mm is not very wide on the D2X (or any Nikon DSLR). Otherwise, you can simply go with the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and take advantage of a faster zoom. From the beginning, Laurie has specified that she is interested in something around 10-14mm.

 

The attached image was shot with the 12-24mm DX at 12mm, 1/60 sec f4 on the D100 at ISO 800.<div></div>

16mm f/3.5 gives the same angle of view on an APS-C frame as a 20mm lens does on a full frame 35mm camera. This is only a few degs less than the view from a 12mm focal length of the 12-24 zoom.

 

I am happy to hear from Bjorn that the 16/3.5 behaves very well on the D2X as well.

Nikon's crop factor is 1.5. I know, you can add a few more digits after the decimal point and the actual factor varies a tiny bit from model to model, but a 16mm on the D2X is more like 24mm on a film body, not 20mm.

 

There is a big difference between 12mm and 16mm on a D2X.

Your assertion is valid for a rectilinear lens but the 16/3.5 is a fisheye.

You are right that I forgot the 16mm was a fisheye. But then, is a fisheye what Laurie is looking for here, especially after the center crop on a DSLR.

Wow, Thanks again for all the great feedback! Shun, thanks for posting a photo.

 

I have considered a manual focus lens. I often turn off autofocus when shooting landscapes anyway. My challenge is that, I'm fairly slow at manually focusing. There are times when the camera can do it faster and more acurately than my eye (perhaps because I wear glasses). For that reason, I do like the option.

 

The 17-55 is a purchase I'm considering for the future. I'd like to replace my 18-70 kit lens with better/faster glass. It's fine for most things but at 18mm, the mustaching is considerable. For shooting people/candids it's just not as fast as I'd like.

 

I've also considered a fisheye. For that, I would probably settle for manual focus. For most shooting applications, I'd have the luxury of taking my time to manually focus.

 

While several of the options mentioned above are worthy of consideration, the 12-24 looks like the best choice for my current needs(until something else comes along that I can't live without). I really appreciate the discussion of options. It's reassuring to know I haven't overlooked the perfect lens.

 

Thanks again!

If you want a fisheye, get the 10.5mm DX, which unfortunately is not AF-S. A fisheye designed for the 24x36mm frame will be kind of weird for the smaller digital sensor.