Need wide angle lens for full frame suggestion

[hoi_kwong]

<p>I'm using Nikon 24-70 on my full frame camera for events and banquet shooting. In some occasions, the 24 mm is not wide enough to cover large group of people in a small banquet room. I know the 14-24 mm can do the job but I can't afford for another not-so-frequently-used lens. Well, I welcome all suggestions on any wide angle lens wider than 24mm on full frame. Any brand is OK , doesn't have to be Nikon. Mostly, I will use it for group picture inside concert hall and banquet room. Many thanks </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Rokinon / Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is a manual focus lens that's pretty small and pretty inexpensive. It's IQ is unbelievable good and to manual focus such as UWA lens is not a problem at all.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Would the Nikon 20mm AFD do it, they are relatively inexpensive used these days?</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>If you want AF then the 14-24 is the only good game in town. Otherwise, you have to cut quality, especially since the really good MF glass tends to cost too. For a bit lower quality, there are a lot more options available, depending on which characteristics of a lens you value most.<br>

But I would ask if it's really desirable to use a superwide for such situations due to the distortion? Already at 28 does the distortion affect faces at the edge of the frame, at 20 mm and wider it gets quite bad, people need to be more or less in the center. Ladies do no appreciate the effect :-) Stitching multiple photos together could solve it, but might prove difficult in the situations you encounter.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Current lens: Sigma 12-24mm (for FX)<br>

Bargain price on its discontinued predecessor: Sigma 15-30mm.</p>

<p>I have the latter and it's not only very nice, but also pretty cheap in Nikon mount.<br>

I really don't think you'd be "cutting quality" in any significant sense - there <em>are</em> lenses other than Nikkors that are quite good, you know.</p>

<p>None of the super wides are spectacular for "getting everybody in" because they inevitably will have some curved perspective, even though they aren't fisheyes. However, the advantage of a zoom here is that you can choose how wide you want.</p>

<p>Have you thought about swiveling your body and then using Photomerge or some such to combine your images?</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>I use a used Sigma 15-30 and they are going for good prices, but the problem is when you need it tomorrow.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>Be a man buy the nikon 14-24 2.8 you will be happy you did </p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p><em>Have you thought about swiveling your body and then using Photomerge or some such to combine your images?</em><br>

I used different stitching software (freeware, except PhotoMrrge), but didn't get a good result. It's acceptable on landscape when combining a few snow mountain picture. But ugly on stitching people. Part of their faces or bodies in the merging edge were trimmed off.<br>

The Sigma 12-24mm is over 1K, just $400 less than Nikon 12-24 in Canada. <br>

</p>

[woolly1]

<p>When I picked up my D700 I bought a Sigma 12-24 DG used for $400 on that well known auction site .... the name of which escapes me right now. :)<br /> At the time I think it was the only super-wide FX zoom option so I dived in. Not only is it perfectly satisfactory but a load of fun. Of course it has distortion at the wide end .... what do you expect .... it's 12mm for Lord's sake?<br /> Stopped down it not only improves in sharpness but also loses some of the exposure vignetting. But I like that loss of exposure in photos, it sort of frames things. YMMV<br /> Get one and try it, if you don't get along you'll get your money back and you can sell the car for a Nikon 14-24. <br /> Don't worry about corners, your biggest headache will be lighting a banquet room evenly for a 12mm FL ..... and good luck with those strobes ;-D</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I could see the stitches problem, and I confess that my uses have been with people fairly widely spaced. You do have to be fast to keep people in place.</p>

<p>The 12-24 Sigmas are, of course, also available used for a little less, and - as I said - I have seen very much lower prices for Nikon mount 15-30mm Sigmas. For some reason, the Nikon mounts are cheaper than the Canon EOS mounts -- so somebody using Nikons must have liked them for a while anyhow.</p>

 

[ronald_muscio]

<p>Nikon 16-35/4.0 AFs VR gets my vote.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Nikon 18-35mm AF f3.5-4.5 , perhaps ? Can be had for around $300 at KEH.</p>

<p> </p>

[tcphoto756]

<p>You might want to check out the Tokina Pro FX 16-38mm F/2.8. I've seen some impressive results with that lens. The price is reasonable too at around 800.00.</p>

[leonard_forte2]

Noone mentioned Tokina 17-35 f4. I don't have one (planning to get one) but reviews seem to be good.

[ShunCheung]

<p>The OP writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm using Nikon 24-70 on my full frame camera for events and banquet shooting. In some occasions, the 24 mm is not wide enough to cover large group of people in a small banquet room.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This thread has been around for almost a full day, and I am a bit surprised that nobody has pointed this out.</p>

<p>For group images in partices, etc., on a FX-format camera, we typically use lenses no wider than 35mm. Otherwise, people on the two ends will look stratched and fat. The distortion is quite obvious. If you must, maybe try 30mm to 28mm, but that is not ideal.</p>

<p>In other words, the wide end of the OP's 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is already way too wide for group images on FX. Therefore, getting something even wider is not a good approach. Instead, I suggest the OP finds a few standard ways to organize the group of people into front/back rows, perhaps some sitting and some standing. It is much easier inside a studio than at a restaurant or hotel/banquet, but I would figure that out. Getting a wider lens is, IMO, not the solution here.</p>

[hoi_kwong]

<p>Hi Shun, you are right, thanks for reminding me. I will aviod ultra wide lens to shoot people, only on landscape or special effect.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>In some occasions, the 24 mm is not wide enough to cover large group of people <em>in a small banquet room. </em>(my italics)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the room is small, a wider lens might be the only option to get the shot. Taking multiple shots and stitching in post or inviting the event party out to the lobby (or the parking lot) for group photos might not be options. As the OP noted, results of stitching with living things like people can be problematic. Moving a wall to gain space to use a longer focal length usually isn't an option either. While it may not be ideal, sometimes going wider is all that can be done.</p>

<p>That's not always so bad, though. There are ways to eliminate or minimize distortion to help achieve acceptable results. There are progs and plugins available that might help with a solution. DxO Optics Pro, for example, has an easy-to-use feature to correct <a href="http://www.dxo.com/en/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis">volume anamorphosis</a>, and <a href="http://www.dxo.com/en/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis">Fisheye Hemi</a> might help if a fisheye shot is converted to rectilinear in post. There are other software options out there, too. I personally don't like to rely on technology as a primary solution over conventional photographic best practices, but to me, getting the shot is the most important thing.</p>

<p>I'd recommend a Nikon 17-35/2.8D. There's nothing wrong with the IQ (I think the pixel-peepers make way too much of lab tests), it's <em>very</em> wide with FX, and it has a convenient and useful focal length at the long end (it can save lens changes vs using the wider end of a 24-70, so in that way it's much more versatile than a 14-24/2.8G, as well as being a bit smaller and lighter). ou can also use filters with it (77mm). I still have my 20/2.8D, and it's a fine lens, but I rarely use it since getting my UWA zooms. BTW, I also own a 14-24/2.8G and a 24-70/2.8G, so my opinion comes from personal experience.</p>

<p>The 17-35 gives the bright viewfinder like an f/2.8 lens does, so you get AF and composing advantages over f/4, even if it's not being shot wide open (any lens aperture usually sits wide open until the shutter button is pressed). Sure, it's a little less sharp in the corners than a 14-24 or 16-35, but realistically, who scrutinizes the corner and edge sharpness of event and banquet pics? Viewers or clients are usually much more interested in the subject of the photo than the Ceiling corner molding - they want to see people, awards, trophies, cakes, table centerpieces, etc. IMO it's plenty sharp enough for that (<a href="../photo/13484252">and landscapes too</a>). And yes, it's an older design, but it's not for nothing that it's still in the Nikon lineup two years after the introduction of its erstwhile replacement/update. More good news - any FX body will drive a AF-D focusing mechanism.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>This thread has been around for almost a full day, and I am a bit surprised that nobody has pointed this out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Careful reading shows that I did point out that the distortion is undesirable :-)<br>

But good to know that answers go unnoticed, probably need to improve my choice of words.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as long as you keep people out of the extreme edges, you can go wider than 24mm on FF. however, i wouldn't recommend going wider than 17mm for people shots unless you're trying to be artsy. also, it's nice to have options for when you do want to go wide. since the OP asked about alternatives to the 14-24, i'll start by mentioning my two FX ultrawides: the sigma 15-30--which i picked up used for under $200 and has proven to be a dependable performer for wide shots of street art and urban landscapes, as well as the occasional concert shot--and the tokina 17/3.5, which i got for its small size and because it can take filters. i got that one used from KEH for $350. both are worth hunting around for.</p>

<p>other lenses i would consider are the aforementioned tokina 16-28 and 17-35 and the nikon 17-35. tamron also makes a 17-35 2.8-4 which is said to be pretty good and occasionaly shows up used at a decent price. there's also the nikon 18-35 and the voigtlander 20/3.5. sigma also makes a 20/1.8 but no one apparently owns it and its reputedly not that great at wide apertures. too bad because if it was decent at f/2 i would scoop one in a heartbeat.</p>

[rconey]

<p>I use the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 a fair ammount and am pleased with it.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I second Shun's suggestion, I shoot concert events often, I get a group to line up in rows, shorter in front, taller in back and have them tighten up, overlapping shoulders. Works very well with my Tamron 17-50 (25-75 equiv.), and I still don't go full wide to avoid excess distortion.</p>