Which ultra-wide do you find to be best and why?

[chrishickman81]

I've been considering an ultra-wide lens for my N80 (and someday, D3 or similar

FX digital body) and have come down to the following choices:

 

AF 14mm f/2.8

AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8

(the new) AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8

 

I'm leaning toward the 17-35, because I simply don't know that I will need to go

down to 14 (or 15, or 16), plus it uses regular filters. It seems as though the

14-24 is going to have better optics than the 14 and therefore would be the

better choice (between the two) as it's not going to cost THAT much more...we're

already talking about the most expensive lens I would own either way, so a few

hundred here or there will not make a difference. My widest lens right now is

the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5 - 4.5, and I don't like to go down to 24 on that because

of the distortion, but would love to be able to use that perspective and wider,

especially in museums to "get everything in" without having to stand 50 ft away

and having lower light capabilities (since flash is not usually allowed).

 

Has anyone out there used a 14mm lens and can comment on the perspective it

provides vs. 17mm?

[michaelging]

I have and use the 17-35mm 2.8 lens on my film cameras now and when I get the nikon Digital , (D3 or D300 ) I will still be able to use it then. Its a great lens.

[chrishickman81]

All 3 of the mentioned lenses can be used on film or digital.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

I have a 15mm lens that I use for another brand.

 

Also have a 20mm Nikkor I bought in Hong Kong in 1972 and it still works with my

Nikkormat.

 

I like primes!

 

Best to your Photog. Success!

[eric_arnold]

if you're wiling to wait and have the dough, i'd get the 14-24. otherwise, go for the 17-35, which is only marginally cheaper.

[chrishickman81]

Thank you Eric, but I'm looking for the "why" and "in what situations" for one being better than the other based on personal experience. If you have experience with the 14 and the 17-35, I'd love to hear about it!

[mawz]

14's really too wide for almost all use on FF, photographer's limbs can be a problem with it (I've been toying with getting a Tamron 14, which is available at a reasonable cost on the used market and a near match for the Nikkor optically). I can find some uses for it (Mostly involving gonzo portraiture and small spaces) but for the most part a 20mm's all I need on 35mm/FX. If you're going to buy a prime, get a 20mm, it's much more flexible.

 

The 17-35's what I'd recommend. It's a superb lens, the range is much more useful on film than a 14 prime or a 14-24 (which is lacking on the long end for general use) and it's findable, which the 14-24 won't be for quite a while after it ships in November.

 

I actually see the 14-24 as a more desirable lens for DX than 35mm/FX use, it covers a more useful range (21-36mm-e) on DX. On FX I'd see it as a complement to the 17-35, but not a replacement. The 17-35 covers an ideal range for a wide-angle zoom, from wide-normal through ultrawide.

[chrishickman81]

Awesome, that makes sense and is what I was looking for, thanks.

[ShunCheung]

Bjorn Roslett has an initial report that the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S also works well on the D3. If you are not in a hurry, you might want confirmation about that.

 

IMO, 17mm is very wide already so that unless you specalize on super wides, the 14-24mm/f2.8 is likely an overkill. Keep in mind that it isn't even a 2x zoom so that it is indeed limiting on its long end as Adam points out. The 17-35 is a moderate wide to super wide for the FX sensor and is IMO a lot more useful.

[ronald_moravec1]

15mm. The 12 is more difficult but I do use it sometimes. Talking film here.

 

If I had to pick 12/15/21 for film, it would be 21.

[tonybeach]

Kids these days love the ultra wide FOV and fisheyes in particular, especially snowboarders and skaterboarders. If these are potential clients, then the 14-24/2.8 would be the ticket. Coming from DX format, I would note that 12mm (17mm equivalent FOV on a FX or film) is wide enough for me, and indeed 14mm would be the sweet spot (20mm FX or film equivalent FOV).

 

As for the primes, the old primes just don't seem to cut it on a digital sensor. My experience is that they exhibit too much CA and pixel peeping reveals the images to be generally soft. I am reasonably certain that the 14-24/2.8 will outperform the 14/2.8 or any 20mm and 24mm primes.

[steven_oster]

I own the 18-35mm 3.5 and I love it. As you know it's the cheaper version of the 17-35mm 2.8. With the ED glass it's nice and sharp wide open, stopped to 5.6 corners reach equal sharpness with center. I can reliably hand hold it at 1/8th. It sounds like to me that you've got money to spend so I will throw in my vote for the 17-35mm 2.8. That 14-24mm zoom sounds like a hell of a lens, but being so expensive without the possibility of a protective filter seems like a big hinderance to me. And when you get wide like this, alot of the time composition requires you to get close to the subject, surprisingly close. So the 17-35mm seems to me far more useful, and I doubt 17mm is going to limit you!

[twmeyer]

The 14mm is better on my D200 than the many samples of the 17-55 and 17-35 f2.8 lenses I have used and is waaay better than the F4 12-24. Haven't even seen a 12-24 F2.8, but Nikon sure thinks it's special. <p>I love the 14mm F2.8, and it's just great to look at, forget looking through it (which is great... razor sharp). What a beautiful chunk of glass!... t

[vivek iyer]

15mm on full frame. Fantastic. Buy a Bessa-L.

[ilkka_nissila]

Avoid the 14mm. It doesn't work well on high res DSLRs, for example, the 12-24mm DX produces much cleaner and sharper images, less CA.

[oskar_ojala]

17 mm is already a huge jump from 24 mm, you should try out wider lenses if you really want to consider going wider than 17 mm. Most people would probably never need or want wider than 17 mm.

 

Consider also the long end, the 17-35 has a more generally useful zoom range, while the 14-24 is for those who want to go really wide. The jump between 24 mm and 35 mm is also considerable, and based on your description, it seems that convenience would also be useful for you.

[jonathan_walker]

I love my 20 2.8 AIS on the F-4.

[twmeyer]

"<i>Avoid the 14mm. It doesn't work well on high res DSLRs, for example, the 12-24mm DX produces much cleaner and sharper images, less CA.</i><p>This is exactly the opposite of my recent experience with these lenses on my D200, especially regarding CA... the 12-24 was uncorrectable, while the 14mm came into line easily with CS3 ARC4.1... t

[michael_bradtke]

I like my 14mm very much on film. You do have to be sure that parts of your body are not in the frame.

 

I have the Tamron 14mm. I was able to test both the Tamron and the Nikon at the same time on my D100. I had a better looking file from the Tamron.The difference in price at the time was only $300 USD. in favor of the Tamron.

 

I find the lens to be sharp and have good contrast even at f/2.8.

Remember that with a lens this wide DOF is considerable even wide open.If you are focused at 6ft your DOF will range from 3.6 to 17.3 and thats at f/2.8 If you stop down to f/5.6 the DOF is from 2.59 to infinity.

 

 

I have used a friends 12-24 and find it as good as my 14. I do not like the fact that the 12-24 is only f/4 I also find that the 12-24 takes up a lot more room in my camera bag

 

Right now no one (except Nikon) knows for sure how the 14 mm will work on the D3.

 

If you have a good camera store near you go in and see if they have a 14 in stock. See if they will let you stick it on your camera and grab some shots. Its the only sure way to know if its what you want or not.

 

Michael