Nikon Prime, Super-Super Wide-angle lens, 13 or 12 mm

[BelaMolnar]

<p>NIKON. Please resurrect the NIKON Nikkor 13 mm f/3.5 Rectilinear prime lens, . .( or make it 12 mm even better, no AF motor! Chip for ID for the body only. ) and I don't even mind if it is going to be an f/8 only, in the contrary, I would like it at f/8 max aperture and price range not much more the $2000.00-2500.00 In a body like the AF 14 mm f/2.8 ED would be beautiful. No need AF, in this vide angle of view, everything is sharp and the angle of movement so small, you can shoot with very slow shutter speed anyway. Don't try it to quiz to a zoom. I don't like the behemoth 14-24 anyway, and using the 14/2.8 instead. I talking about a real solid prime, manual 12 or 13 mm supe-super rectilinear wide angle lens, with-out all the unnecessary moving AF parts.</p>

<p>Keep dreaming.</p>

<p><img src="webkit-fake-url://A407C600-9B32-4DFF-BEB5-32F10EE8DC9F/Picture%206.jpg" alt="Picture 6.jpg" /><img src="webkit-fake-url://A407C600-9B32-4DFF-BEB5-32F10EE8DC9F/_DFX8159a-bw.jpg" alt="_DFX8159a-bw.jpg" /></p>

<p><img src="webkit-fake-url://A407C600-9B32-4DFF-BEB5-32F10EE8DC9F/_DFF6270bw-pano5.jpg" alt="_DFF6270bw-pano5.jpg" /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>it would cost as much as the new Leica 55/1.4 or more since so few people would buy one.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Only 4 degrees extra horizontal AoV. I've got to know why you're so deperate for that tiny amount of extra coverage over a 14mm Bela - that's assuming that the nominal focal length is actually close to the real focal length, since the stated focal length of most lenses is an approximation.<br>

The 13mm Nikkor was only ever available to special order and under 1000 appear to have been made, but I'm sure that there are still a few around for the right (big) money. So I think the closest you'll get to your dream is Samyang's 14mm MF lens.</p>

<p>"I don't like the behemoth 14-24 anyway..." - Your loss! It's Nikon's best ultrawide by far. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Why is this request posted to this forum? Shouldn't it be in some letter going to Nikon headquarters?</p>

<p>To me, 14mm on the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S is already way too wide, which I rarely use. And I can't imagine the amount of chromatic aberration from 12mm on FX, especially 36MP FX.</p>

<p>BTW, the new 55mm/f1.4 lens in Nikon mount is a Zeiss. If it were a Leica, be prepared to pay twice as much. :-)</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Dear Rodeo. For One of your question; I like ultra wide angle shoots. I used to own a 14-24/2.4 zoom and yes, it was a behemoth for me. It is more comfortable for me to use the 14/2.8 prime, and if you don't know, the 14/2.8 prime a degree or two wider then the 14-24/2.8 at 14mm. For a ultra ultra wide angle shoots, I using the 14/2.8 and taking multiple framer like panorama, several rows and stitching them together to get the effect of a super-super wide angle shoot. The slight benefit of the sharpest 14-24/2.8 doesn't do to much for me. The Zeiss 55/1.4 is an extreme prestige lens you right. But the time the Nikon 13mm f/3.5 Ai was available, the pries was todays $ around 3500-4000 dollar. With todays technology, computers and better high precision machinery, it is possible to produce a lens of extreme wide angle, in a smaller lens body, slower f number, like f/8, witch would be much enough for the high ISO cameras we have today. I never using the 14/2.4 full open anyway, it is almost all the time at f/8. You are right, today, very few amateur appreciate super wide angle lenses, never mind to know how to use them. I haw seen amateurs around me, when they get an idea if me and bought a 14mm wide angle lens and never figured out how to use it effectively. And they just sold the lens. Some of the people even has a problem to use or compose an image of a 17mm wide angle lens too. If the 13 mm f/3.5 Ai is not astronomical priced today, I would have it all ready.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Thank you Shun, you answered some of my line here. I know, for some of the people, even the 17 mm is to wide.<br>

I don't know the NIKON address. Please send me, and I forwarding this letter to them.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>. . . <em> "So I think the closest you'll get to your dream is Samyang's 14mm MF lens."</em><br /> Rodeo, you didn't read my letter. I stated, <strong>I using the AF 14 mm f/2.8 ED lens at the moment, instead of the behemoth AF-S 14-24 mm f/2.8.</strong> I have this lens, sitting in my glass cabinet.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I assume, Bela, that you know the Nikkor 13mm is much bigger than the "behemoth" 14-24?

 

Fortunately, Sigmna make an affordable and decent (though not quite as good as the 14-24) 12-24mm full-

frame zoom, and have done for some years. It's a sensible size. I'm not sure what the issue with moving

parts might be.

 

Failing that, have you considered using software to turn the output of a fish-eye lens into a rectilinear

projection?

 

I hope one of those solutions will be good enough. Otherwise I think you're stuck with panoramas.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Andrew. Yes, I know how big is the 13 mm f/3.5 AI-S. Long ego I had seen one in S. Africa, one of my friend had one. I thought on that time, it is to expensive and I wasn't to seriously in landscape and interior, architectural photography on that time. So I missed the opportunity, not realizing how great and useful is the lens. Much later, when I realized the potential of this lens, was to late, no longer available and price get up sharply, and get even more unaffordable. What I really like to have, as all ready mentioning in the beginning, to have a similar high angle of rectilinear view, but, in the smaller package. ( 13 mm f/8 ?) Like the 14/2.8 I using at the moment. I haw seen many images done with this lens, and nothing can come to close to this lens. With todays technology, I believe, it can be produced mach less then 5-10,000 dollar. I tried the Sigma 12-24 mm on FF and don't liked. Stitching the 14 mm images still give me better quality. You right, I stuck with stitching. No problem, Just dreaming.<br>

One more time, for the AF-S 14-24 mm f/2.8. I used for a year, and find inconvenient, specially in a landscape / architecture situation, travel and walking a lot, and practically the zoom range was entirely unpractical for me, when I had the 17-35 mm f/2.8 on the second camera all the time. Basically I used at the 14 mm range and hauling a big chunk os glass, zoom all over for nothing. Yes, the 14-24/2.8 is sharper at all aperture. But this is not problem for me, because I always use the biggest aperture at f/8 only, or smaller, for infinite DoF. So, I sold the zoom and hold on the 14 mm f/2.8 prime.</p>

[memphis1]

<p>on my leica cl, i keep the 15mm cv rectilinear lens --- i also have dropped change into the 10.5mm nikon dx fisheye --- yeah, it's a specialty / funky lens -- but if you are a full frame person, there are a few older options out there - -- sigma and tamron and tokina -- all affordable<br>

<a href="http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=9&cc=81135&r=WG&f">http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=9&cc=81135&r=WG&f</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=9&cc=81135&r=WG&f">http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=9&cc=81135&r=WG&f</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA09999059251N?r=FE">http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA09999059251N?r=FE</a></p>

<p>but i've rather been enjoying the fisheye</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1378382_10202263504692630_1632901719_n.jpg" alt="" width="643" height="960" /></p>

 

[memphis1]

<p>and for the primes -- there's a sigma 8mm</p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=8&cc=81135&r=WG&f">http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=8&cc=81135&r=WG&f</a></p>

[memphis1]

<p>and for the primes -- there's a sigma 8mm</p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=8&cc=81135&r=WG&f">http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=8&cc=81135&r=WG&f</a></p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Dear Blake Billings. . . . We, or I had a language problem here. I guess. I repeated all ready, several time, I'm talking about an extreme super rectilinear wide angle lens here, Full-Frame, and I haw all ready own the Nikon 14 mm f/2.8 rectilinear prime, as I mentioned earlier. We are not talking about Fish-Eye or any other thing, please read the first comments.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Bela, you keep referring to a 13mm f/3.5 Nikkor. There never was such a beast. The only 13mm prime that Nikon has produced has been an <strong>f/5.6</strong> lens. So not too far from the f/8 that you want. I remember seeing and handling an example of the 13mm Nikkor at a trade show some tens of years ago. IIRC it was larger across the front glass than the 14-24mm Zoom Nikkor and at least as heavy, with the same lack of provision for a filter. Focusing was quite heavy too with that huge weight of glass pressing down on the helicoid that had to support it.</p>

<p>Looking through it, the impression wasn't much short of a (rather dim) fisheye and my thought was that the look of it would get stale quite quickly, just like a fisheye. 5 or 6 cassettes of film past it and it'd be up for sale. I doubt I'd have been interested at a quarter of the asking price to be honest, let alone having to wait 6 months for the order to be filled.</p>

<p>BTW, good luck getting Nikon to even acknowledge your request. You're probably better off lobbying Cosina or Samyang.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Yesssss, I made this mistake in the first time and following my mistake since. It is a <strong>f/5.6</strong> all right. Maybe, because I had a 15 mm f/3.5 AI-S as well. I had waken-up very early, can't do anything, sat daw to the computer and realized this mistake. I know very well this lens long time and also the proper<strong> f stop 5.6</strong> but my brain switched somehow to 3.5 Sorry for the mistake. Yes, it is a big junk of glass, and you not traveling with this lens. It is usable in controlled situation for a special project, witch I like to practice this special project if I had a chance. I would rather hauling around this lens then the 14-24 Seeing images what this lens can produce, in perspective, I just fallen in love with it. Well, if I hit the jackpot... Ha ha ha. Poor mans hope. My crying is, because several situation, my AF 14/2.8 ED wasn't wide enough. I never tried fish-eye image conversion to rectilinear form, with software. -------Any recommendation for a software?</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>The super-super-wide-angle class of lenses seems to be a tool from the tool box that we can be tempted to use just because we have it. It's trendy to shoot wider and wider, just as it's trendy to shoot razor-thin depth of field just because we have an 85mm in the bag. Sometimes I wonder if the message we are trying to convey, be it to the client or to our fine art sensibilities, is taking a back seat to these trends. Sometimes I grab a 35mm f/1.8 <em>and nothing else</em> for the specific purpose of not letting my gear dictate my style, at least not the way a 12mm and an 85mm might. <br>

That said, there is a Sigma 12-24mm for full-frame that might work...<br>

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/12-24mm-f45-56-dg-hsm-ii</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>There's also the 12mm f/5.6 Voigtlander lens for Leica screwmount cameras, available used for a small fraction of the cost of the 13mm Nikon. Yes, you have to use an external viewfinder. With an adapter this lens will work on M-mount cameras. There was even a non-retrofocus version made for the Nikon F and F2. This is also only available used, albeit with great patience required.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Bill. Good idea, but, you need a full frame body for it. Like a Leica. Then it is not cheep either.</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>Ben, the other problem is with the ray angle on many really wide-angle lenses, especially non-retrofocus designs, which will tend to create color shifts and other problems with a digital sensor as opposed to film. For an example, see: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131013_1-SonyA7r-color-shading.html .</p>