ultra wide lens for full frame?

[martha_benedict]

<p>As to <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3841768">Gary Demuelenare</a> 's comments about details getting lost in a wide angle view of a "big scene," I think there's a widely held misunderstanding of what wide angle lenses do. You need to be close to objects, practically touching them, to render good detail with a wide angle lens. Telephoto will pull in the far objects of a big scene. Wide angle does the opposite. Distant vistas are better captured by telephoto lenses. Close surrounding scenes are the best subjects of wide angle lenses. The term wide angle misleads people. Your greatest understanding comes from shooting for yourself, as Gary found out.<br>

I think the 20mm Voigtlander may be a great choice, though I haven't used it. I recently acquired the Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL-II and it is extraordinary on its own merits and even more so if you consider the price. Lloyd Chambers evidently favors the Nikon 14-24mm yet he sees potential in the Voigtlander 20mm, which is one third the price and one fifth the weight. It is a manual focus lens, which may be a deal breaker, but I think it is worth investigating further, possibly renting it for a week to test it.</p>

[hiro]

<p>I've tried the AF-D 20mm 2.8, Sigma 15-30, Sigma 20 1.8, and Tamron 17-35. I like the Tamron the best.</p>

[martha_benedict]

<p>I forgot that Charlie Packard has a gallery of the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 20mm f3.5 SL II Aspherical. His work may convince of what Ilkka suggests and which I'm guessing about:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/charliepackard/cv20</p>

 

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"i'd like to upgrade to full frame (D700)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure going to FX from DX is really an upgrade. It's really a format change. The next step larger would be medium-format digital, and that neighborhood is <em>really, really</em> expensive. Arguably the best IQ in DX right now is the D90. It's not very far off the high-ISO/low light performance of a D700. Its successor will be even better. FX will get you a little wider and a bit faster, but as you're finding out, the glass to get there can be expensive. Going to FX also loses the 'reach' of long lenses. They're both 12 mp cameras...so resolution is a wash. If you think about it, f/4 to f/2.8 is just one stop.</p>

<p>With long lenses, I can think of DX as a 1.5x teleconverter with no light-dimming or IQ penalty. In fact, DX probably has better IQ in terms of using the more central part of lenses, staying away from the weak areas (edges and corners). I still have my D200 as a backup, although I'm saving for another DX body with better high ISO/low-light IQ. I'll keep some kind of DX around for the 'reach'. BTW, the D700 is a heavy camera. With a 24-70/2.8G or a 14-24/2.8G, it's a beast. My D200 with 12-24/4 or 18-200 DX VR is much lighter and smaller, and it's heavy compared to a D90, which will easily out-do it for IQ.</p>

<p>To me, going FX is diminished returns, and not worth it unless you really want or need FX. I like to shoot at night or in marginal light, and I like really wide angle, so a D700 made sense for me. YMMV - it might not be what you really want or need.</p>

<p>That said, besides some of the ideas already mentioned, you could find a used 16mm fisheye and use post-processing to rectify to rectilinear. I do that now and then with a 10.5mm DX on my D200. It's w-i-d-e. I use DxO to convert (the FX version of that prog is more expensive, BTW), but there's Fisheye Hemi PS plugin and several other progs (some are freeware, I think) that will do that kind of conversion, too. When I don't carry the 14-24, I shoot a 20/2.8D for a wide angle.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You need to be close to objects, practically touching them, to render good detail with a wide angle lens. Telephoto will pull in the far objects of a big scene. Wide angle does the opposite. Distant vistas are better captured by telephoto lenses. Close surrounding scenes are the best subjects of wide angle lenses."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure I completely agree, Martha. I think it depends on what you envision and the scene. This was shot at the 14mm end of the 14-24/2.8G. I set up about 40-50 ft. from the closest bridge piling. The land on the far side of the bay is a good two miles away. A lot more detail is visible in the full res view. This one has a few basic LR adjustments and output sharpening only. It'll look much better when I can spend a little time with it, but you get the idea where I'm coming from.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote><div></div>

[leicaglow]

<p>The 18-35mm is my main (and currently only zoom) lens. It is superb, <em>until </em> you need to use it on FX at the 18mm range. It has very pronounced barrel distortion, but if lines are not critical to you, I highly recommend it if the 17-35mm is a bit too pricey.</p>

[david_owen3]

<p>I was in exactly the same situation a short while ago when I was lucky enough to see a second hand D700 locally. The first question you need to ask yourself is how wide is ultrawide. You, like me, seem to have already 24mm covered so I would question the point in getting something around 20mm and even 17mm, where there is a fair amount of choice, is perhaps not as much difference as you might want for a real uw effect. Beyond that, the choices are really quite limited. A supposedly wonderful tiny lens like the Vogtlander 15mm will hit the mirror of a DSLR so we are left with the following main choices that I can think of:<br>

Zooms -- Sigma 15-30 and 12-24. The 12-24 is the one I went for. The QC is unfortunately distinctly variable --the first copy I looked at had significant decentering on the right and the second, which I've decided to keep, can be pretty awful near 24mm unless stopped down really far. But let's look on the bright side. There's nothing else going beyond 14mm so even if you crop out a smudgy corner or two which I find often necessary, you should still be left with around 14-15mm. And the lens has a tonal richness which can be very appealing --it seems to me more characterful and attractive than the Sigma 10-20 I used to have on the D200. Centre sharpness at least is usually pretty good. Test a copy before buying, concentrating on the wide end. Don't expect good performance at the top end though you could strike lucky and get that as well.<br>

The 15-30 is discontinued but, being less extreme, seems to produce fewer duds and could be a bargain second hand. It seems to be less saturated and contrasty than the 12-24.It's also quite bulky.</p>

<p>Primes: Nikon do a 14mm which is probably not within your budget though is likely to give the best overall IQ. The Sigma 14mm may not be any better than the zoom and the Tamron 14mm is surprisingly expensive but appears to be sharp at least. It might be worth waiting for the Samyang 14mm which was supposed to be out by now but the release has been delayed until early next year. The lens will be inexpensive and some of their other offerings such as the 85mm f1.4 have a good reputation. This will be manual focus only but this is of no significance on the D700.<br>

Finally, if you want something small,light and cheap and 17mm is wide enough, take a look at the Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro. Also discontinued but easy enough to get hold of, this lens seems popular with owners.<br>

David</p>

[caribsurf]

<p>I am not a user of Nikon but I recently purchased the Zeiss Distagon T 21mm f/2.8 ZE for use on a Canon EOS 5D body. It is a truly great lens, next to no distortion or CA. It is expensive, but I would save and get one. It is now available/soon to be available with a Nikon mount (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09111602carlzeisszf2.asp) . A high quality lens is a once in a lifetime purchase ( you will change from the Sigma eventually and loose money) and it will work on any further Nikon upgrades. It is for life. All the electronic functions that you might expect are present BUT YOU HAVE TO FOCUS MANUALLY. That is no big deal for me as I do this routinely for my Landscape work + Mirror Lock Up. It has an enormous DOF and will focus down to a minimum distance of 8 inches. Link to a sample frame below, shot hand-held with available light.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10122271&size=lg<br>

Stephen</p>

[lorenzo_ward1]

<p>try the Zeiss 25mm/2.8. manual but you don't really need to focus if you shoot f5.6.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Go to Ebay and look for either a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye or a 20mm f/ 2.8 Nikkor. I have seen both in tremendous shape for under $400.</p>

[fred_mackintosh]

<p>Be careful of getting a full-frame fisheye expecting it to produce high quality "de-fished" images. I'll bet you'd be better off with even a cheap zoom.</p>

<p>It is asking a LOT of a fisheye with its effectively highly compressed corners to produce results capable of significant enlargement (say, 11-14 and up). I do not have experience with 16mm on FX, but have used the very nice 10.5 on DX. De-fished, it is simply not capable of producing acceptable 11x14 (probably not even 8x10), at least for my applications/taste. </p>

<p>If 20 is not wide enough for you, as I suspect to be the case since I find it too close to my better 24 to be of much use, consider the 18/3.5AIS, which can be had for under $500. I have found it to work very well on the D700, in spite of Bjorn Rorslett's reservations, which made me carefully test the lens before deciding to buy it. </p>

<p>Sorry, but the zooms just don't do it for me. The high quality ones are just too big, and are usually inferior to even decent primes (the 14-24 may well be an exception, but it is a MONSTER). The zoom ring is not the only way to compose a good shot!</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>thanks everyone for the great responses, after reading them, i think the choice is definitely between the sigma 15-30 or 12-24. just to answer the various questions on why full frame or why ultra wide: i love to shoot in very low/dim light and prefer the best iso and low light performance possible. the weight is definitely a con as i carry my DX practically everywhere i go. i have an ultra wide for DX and love using it- getting literally to touching distance with objects when taking it. i see some good examples of using ultra wides without getting in the face of objects too. again thanks everyone and i'm glad we have such a good community here.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Albert, you do realize that if you use either of those two lenses, you will have to switch to DX format on the D700. The lenses will most likely vignette on the normal FX. If you have to go to the DX format feature on the D700, what have you gained?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>No, Scott, both of the Sigma lenses mentioned (15-30, 12-24) cover a full 24x36mm-format sensor. They are not APS-C or "digital only" lenses.</p>

[rob_shooter]

<p>Has anybody used the Tokina 12-24mm on FF? I understand it is useable from about 18mm to 24mm. Wondered what the image quality is like?</p>

[bo_kral]

<p>$500 would buy nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 but it looks like nobody is using it? Maybe all the pros that bought it for $1600 about 9 years ago do not want to talk about it :=) I use it on D700 as my main lens with 14-24 for cases where it works better. Above f5.6 the difference between the two is about 3 sharpening steps (or less) in NX.</p>

[james_stevens6]

<p>I have had pretty good luck with the Sigma 12-24 on my D700. It's slow, but when shooting at night, I just set the ISO to drift upward and get good results. I bought mine on EBay for $600. I'm sure the Nikon 14-24 is a fantastic lens, but I'm just not ready to spend that kind of cash for a lens I will likely use 20% of the time. I just saw a Sigma 15-30 at a used photo shop in Dallas for $300. Good luck!</p>

[fred_mackintosh]

<p>I had very back luck with the 20-35 Nikon. And it is a shame, since it is still a (barely) manageable size. Perhaps unfortunately, I got rid of it before getting the D700. But, it was utterly useless on DX, and noticeably soft on film, except, maybe stopped WAY down. </p>

[mark_mandell]

<p>Albert, I've been reasonably happy with the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D on my D700. It's not especially flare resistent as you can see from the attached, but even that is fairly controlled. I got good value.</p><div></div>

[cheezy]

<p>Funny I came on to look to ask what ultra/ wide lens people were using on their D700's. And as ever everyone has the same dilema!.<br>

I recently bought a D700 to replace my old FM2 with manual lens. And after using it a while I think I want to go wider (I mostly use an old metal non CPU 28-85 macro f3.5 Nikkor which is great). I have been to a local shop and strapped on the 14 - 24 beast, and it looks great, but it's going to be way too heavy to lug around doing landscapes. Plus to me whats the point of having an ultra to wide zoom, it's all basically "wide". And of course the price is a BIG problem. Also I like a poloriser , which is not possible with that beast.<br>

So I want something lighter , wider but with out too much bending or flare. From reading the above I'm looking at the 20mm f 2.8 nikkor or 18mm f 3.5 . Any comments?. I want to stick with Nikkor, I'm not aversed to manual , since thats all I have, but it would be nice to get a CPU lens with AF for a change!.</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Chris, if you change your mind a little bit, for landscape the best option is Voigtlander 20/3.5. It has a great build quality, a very smooth focus ring and great optical performance. Of course is not Nikon and is still MF. If you need a low light performer, then Sigma 20/1.8 AF-S is what you need. But is bigger... Of course for this focal Zeiss Distagon 21mm is a quinn but as every quinn is very precious :-)</p>

<p>I have the Nikon 20mm 2.8 AF-D and I must say again that does not impress me at any point. It is really far away from the IQ of other Nikon primes. You can do your job with it but do not expect spectacular results.</p>

<p>My ++++ advice for you is Voigtlander. No chance to be unhappy with it.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>It Same to me, most of the photographers quiet happy with up to 20mm wide angle, on a FF (FX) body. I have the 17-35/2.8, and the 14mm/2.8 used to have the 14-24mm/2.8 but it was useless for me, because the huge size and very limited zoom range, so, I sold with profit. As I mentioned I use the 14mm/2.8 rectilinear, but, I can occasionally like to use a wider angle lens then 14mm, see, like 13mm (or 12mm) rectilinear, and would not mind if it is f/5.6 only, or even f/8.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>Bela:<br>

go ahead and buy a 13mm Nikon then, there is one available in Hongkong for the asking price of 22000 Euro!<br>

:-)</p>