Nikon's Ultra Wideangles - Non-Fisheye

[mikepalo]

<p>Hi<br>

I shoot with the Nikon D200.<br>

I plan on staying in the DX format primarily but with this lens especially I would like an FX capable lens because I want super wide angle and may eventually expand out to an FX body for the landscapes and skies I would like to shoot with this lens.<br>

Here is my question. What is the best Nikon Ultra Wide? I notice there are quite a few and they all seem to be similar in price unless u go in the f/3.5+, less wide, and/or prime ranges which are cheaper obviously, but these are the ones Ive been looking at. Pros? Cons?</p>

<p><img src="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/shared/img/sp.gif" border="0" alt="" width="5" height="1" /> <br /> AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED - $800 - (~15-36mm in DX), common sense, it is the widest Non fisheye made, BUT it is DX and its a f/3.5 I think Id prefer a f/2.8 or faster for this lens<br>

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED - $1000 - (~18-36mm in DX), from what I've been told, the standard for wide angle for a while but again DX, on the pro side at 24mm u have f/.5 faster but f/.5 slower at the wider range. <br>

<br /> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED - $1300 - (~26-82mm in DX), Still DX but this one is a f/2.8, I've heard not so flattering things about this lens tho. Any first hands account?</p>

<p>AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - $1700 - (~26-52mm in DX), The FX counterpart to the 17-55mm, The reviews I've read on this lens have not been too flattering either. So same thing any first hand accounts?<br /> <br>

<br /> AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED - $1800 - (~21-36mm in DX), FX is a + imo here, but I have heard this lens flares easily because the bubble style front lens prevents the use of filters, and is the most expensive of all the wideangles<br /> <br>

AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED - $1700 - (~21mm in DX), FX, Prime, my experience with primes is they are slightly limited due to not working with a zoom, but they are also sharper, so can be more beneficial<br /> <br>

<img src="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/shared/img/sp.gif" border="0" alt="" width="5" height="1" /><br>

AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D - $600 - (~30mm in DX), FX, Prime, not as Wide as I'd prefer, but much cheaper then the 14m</p>

<p>I appreciate any assistance or comments. I'd love to hear from anyone who has and/or has used Multiple of these lenses. Sharpness is one of my biggest things I look for in a lens. I want to be able to use the lens in low light with little or no flash and be tac-sharp wide-open. I am a "buy 1x and buy right" kinda person so if the best lens by far is the 14-24mm, I'll put the money down for it, but I want to know which lenses here are actually WORTH their cost, cause I also know it does not need to be the most expensive lens to be a great piece of glass. <br>

<br /> <br>

So in advance. <br>

Thanks for the time and the help.</p>

<p>-Michael Palozzola<br /> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Just a few thoughts. You`re mixing three ranges... extreme wide (14-24 on FX), super wide (17-35 on FX) and wide (17-35 on DX). These are very different. Somebody could ask in the same way "which is the best tele lens, a 85, a 50-150 or a 70-200?" :) Also, format size is something that must be considered. You must choose FX -or- DX.</p>

<p>Last week I had to work with the 14-24. Definitely it`s not a forgiving lens if you`re under direct sunlight... you will have either flare issues (if the sun is in front of you) or your own shadow into the frame (if the sun is behind you). If you can manage all this, results cannot be better.</p>

<p>I bet if there were a G, Nanocoated version, the 17-35 would be a best seller, much better than the 14-24. I consider the 14-24 an update of the 14/2.8 AFD, the 24-70 is an update of the 28-70 but... the 17-35 has not been updated yet. Is easy to see that almost 100% of photojournalists working indoors at short distances use 16/17-35 zooms. I have never seen yet a 14-24 on pro hands.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>I know im mixing ranges somewhat, but the issue is that Im looking for soemthing in the very wide range (under 20mm) and there isnt much, so ive been looking at all the possibilities which will get me in that range. I am looking for a lens which is very wide so I can work on some meteor photography, as well as I want to try shooting some landscape shots in the everglades in areas like the cypress domes(a flooded forest with cathedral quality lighting at many times), which don't allow me the ability of getting far away from the target. Ideally I'd Love to see a 10-25mm f/1.8 but i know that's just wishing :(</p>

<p>Just to confuse things further. I have the Tokina 10-17 fisheye and love the lens. Very, very sturdy build, not ur classic "third party" quality lens even though it does have a bit of a CA-distortion wide open. I was wondering ... has anyone worked with Tokina's AT-X 116 PRO DX AF 11-16mm f/2.8?<br /> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>You are using a DX-format DSLR; I would get a DX wide lens. Among those on your list I think the 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is the best choice now. I have the older 12-24mm/f4.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I second Shun's comment.<br>

I've bought this lens for my IR work with the D70. It has not left the camera since I put it on there.<br>

Next IR converted camera will have the same lens stuck to it as well.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I third Shun's comment. The argument "I want my lenses to be FX ready for that day I get an FX camera" is nice, but won't work for the wide end. FX wide-angles just won't go wide enough on DX - 14mm is "just" 21 and that's wide, but not extremely so.</p>

<p>There are a lot of positive reactions on the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It should be on the short list. Personally, I would go for the Nikon 10-24 because of its more versatile range and positive reviews, and also because I don't need a wide-aperture wide-angle. Depth of field is rather massive at these lenghts, so f/2.8 or f/4 doesn't matter much to me. I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4, which is a very good offering if you want to spare the budget a bit.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>The 14-24 is not prone to flare. Not sure where that came from. It's remarkably free from it. Very slight ghosting, almost no flare.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>All of the lenses that you've listed are of high or very high quality even if you've heard "unflattering reviews." However, none of them are absolutely perfect. In every case you'll see a little bit of distortion. Ironically, the 14 mm and 20 mm primes that you listed are not as sharp as the newer 14-24 mm f/2.8 lens. </p>

<p>If "sharpness is one of your biggest things," ditch the D200 and replace it with a D90 or a D300s.</p>

<p>Most flare issues can be avoided or minimized with proper technique. The 17-55 mm DX lens is prone to flare, so it's best to use it with the hood attached when possible (i.e. when not using filters).</p>

<p>If you were an FX shooter and if you commonly work from a tripod, I'd also recommend that you evaluate the 24 mm f/3.5 PC-E Perspective Control lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>BUT...</p>

<p>the ultra-wide settings on these lenses are usually the ones that produce incredibly boring landscape shots. ultra-ultra wides require different shooting styles and techniques than other lenses. Learn how to use this kind of lens, please... I don't want to see any more shots of "the grand vista" that are lifeless and boring because they are so darn wide. (Remember, some great landscape stuff can be shot with normal and tele lenses!)</p>

<p>That said, I love this range.</p>

<p>The Nikon 10-24 mentioned above is a good choice because it's got the best range on DX and gets good reviews on image quality. My Tokina 11-16 is probably sharper, and it's f2.8 throughout (which is really more useful and important to me than I thought it would be), but it's limited range (17.5 - 24mm equivalent) would be, for most people, very frustrating. The Sigma 10-20 has a LOT of fans here, too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The key to wide landscape images is an interesting foreground. If you have a wide background without proper foreground, your image will be boring. There are plenty of good landscape examples on David Muench's web site: <a href="http://www.muenchphotography.com">http://www.muenchphotography.com</a>.</p>

<p>I never tested the Tokina wide lenses, but both Nikon's 12-24 and 10-24mm AF-S DX are weak on the wide end. Since the OP is using a DX body, I would stick with a DX wide zoom, and the 10-24 is wider. It gradually improves when you zoom to the long end. However, if you shoot wide a lot, FX will give you better results mainly because the FX wide zooms such as Nikon's 17-35mm/f2.8 and 14-24mm/f2.8 are considerably better lenses than their DX counterparts. But if you use those lenses on a DX body, you defeat a lot of the wide capability.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>If you stay with DX you might want to look at the Tokina 12-24 f4. It costs A LOT less than the Nikkor 12-24 and you would have a difficult time identifying which images were taken with it and which were taken with the Nikkor.<br>

The 20mm f/2.8 is a decent FX lens but is only 30mm on a DX body. I had one and it produced nice images but was pretty heavy for a 30mm pime on a D300.</p>

[mikepalo]

<blockquote>

<p>If "sharpness is one of your biggest things," ditch the D200 and replace it with a D90 or a D300s.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>I would absolutely love to but I do not have the $$ to replace the body, and buy a lens. Also I shoot underwater with my D200, and in NO shape form or fashion have the money to replace my housing right now since they are all specific for the camera in which they were made, Soooo lets just work on lens sharpness for now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you would have a difficult time identifying which images were taken with it and which were taken with the Nikkor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wayne you wouldn't happen to have an comparison images between the two lenses would u?</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I agree that 10-24 is probably the best option for you, as many already stated. I have it and is a very good lens.<br>

On the other hand I disagree with Wayne's consideration for 20mm f2.8. It is not a decent lens... is rather a huge dissapointment. I thought that I get a bad copy but when I found the review on www.photozone.de I understood... They are rating it with 2 stars and is the lens that is vignetting more than any other Nikon. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/209-nikkor-af-20mm-f28-d-review--test-report?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/209-nikkor-af-20mm-f28-d-review--test-report?start=1</a></p>

[mikepalo]

<p>I absolutely love that review site u linked Mihai, that is definitally gonna be my first place to look for anything about lenses from now on :) ... I just wish he shot his test shots with a gen 1 camera so I could know how the lens will look shooting on my D200 in the realm of CA distortions, etc. But, cant have everything now can we? :)</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Happy to help others avoid mistakes I did :-) Michael. I'm not an expert but I believe that CA, distortions, etc belong to lenses and are less influenced by what camera you are using. Some differences may occur when switching from DX to FX, especially regarding vignetting, but I believe that their tests could be considered valid for all usual cameras.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>The issue is in the reviews I've read about the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, I'm not comforted at all. They are actaully kinda negative in the wider focal range, and wide open apertures, but what I keep walking away from every review with is, "yes there are major issues but its the only one nikon offers so lets settle with it." I mean read this for instance.... this is earlier on this thread...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>both Nikon's 12-24 and 10-24mm AF-S DX are weak on the wide end. Since the OP is using a DX body, I would stick with a DX wide zoom, and the 10-24 is wider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Basically what is being said is "yes this is a crappy lens at the job it was made for but use it anyway casue its there"</p>

<p>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that CA, distortions, etc belong to lenses and are less influenced by what camera you are using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you look on Ken Rockwells site, in the section about Generations of Digital Cameras he explains it all and has 100% crop comparison shots of the D200 vs D300 (gen 1 vs gen 2). The CA distortion is much more apparent in the D200 picture. I dont understand the specifics as to exactly why it works that way but it's something to do with the architecture of the camera itself and the way the camera perceives the light, granted certain lenses are more prone to it then others, but the camera also has a play in it.</p>

<p> </p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Ok. I'd like to correct my last post seeing as I just reread the generations page. The camera does not create the distortion it is the lens which does it, BUT the newer Gen 2 cameras have a hand in correcting the CA distortion automatically.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Michael, I wouldn't be too concerned about chromatic aberration from either the 10-24 or 12-24 Nikkor. Those two lenses are specifically designed for digital. While there is some CA as just about any other lens has some, it is not serious. I have used the 12-24 on D200 (I currently still own a D200) and I just double checked some images I took with that combo a couple of years back. The bigger problem is that on the wide end, corner sharpness is weak for both lenses. The center is fine and the 24mm end is fine.</p>

<p>Sometimes you need to take what you read on the web with a grain of salt, including certain posts in this forum.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>I think the 20mm/2.8 comes from an era when vignetting and accompanying corner softness was considered to be part of the nature of the ultrawide beast, something that was cheerfully accepted and used for artistic ends. And on film, it looks pretty good. Think super angulon, kodachrome. </p>