Ultra Wide 14-16mm Nikon Fit Options?

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>I usually prefer to use prime lenses where I can and currently my widest lens is a Zeiss 21mm on my D800, which is a very good lens but sometimes a little bit wider would be good.</p>

<p>I've read the reviews of the Samyang/ Rokinon 14mm lens which is usually reckoned to be a decent budget option even with the D800. I ordered this from Amazon brand new, finally got it early this morning and just had time just for a quick test with it this morning, down by the rather chilly River Clyde at dawn.</p>

<p>I used my D800 on an Arca Swiss Z1 head, good carbon fibre tripod, camera on mirror lockup, remote electronic release, my usual setup really. Took a few pics with the Zeiss 21mm first and then the Samyang 14mm by way of a comparison, both lenses at F8. Both set at infinity pointing towards a bend in the river, with a group of trees away on the far side of the river, some trees roughly in the middle of the image behind the bend and a few to the righthandside. The Zeiss images were as usual pin sharp everywhere that matters, I didn't expect Zeiss quality from the Samyang lens but did expect reasonable sharpness in a fairly undemanding test. The Samyang 14mm images were pin sharp only in the very centre of the image area,, none of the corners (and beyond that) had any sharpness at all, even with minimal magnification everything was mush apart from the very centre of each image! This particular lens would barely work with a DX camera, have to assume that it has a major technical fault and I have already arranged to send it straight back to Amazon. I've heard of lens elements being decentred but never experienced anything like this before!</p>

<p>Just wondering whether there are any other decent prime alternatives to this lens as I am a bit wary about getting another one after this experience. The ideal lens would be the Zeiss 15mm but that is kind of expensive for occasional usage! Older Nikon, Tamron and Sigma 14mm lenses don't seem to rate too highly on D800 type sensors either. That only seems to leave zoom options like the Nikon 14-24mm which is kind of large and heavy, or the new Tamron 15-30mm lens, again large and heavy and not available until mid February in the UK either, RRP here is £950. The Nikon 16-35mm always attracted mixed reviews and the Nikon 18-35mm is quite inexpensive but not that wide, just a pity that Nikon didn't have a new 15mm or 16mm g lens.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Humm, interesting test.</p>

<p>Those pixel peepers at DxO have the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical as pretty much <strong><em>the</em> </strong>sharpest wide/ultra wide lens on a D810.. it seems to have quite high vignetting and CA wide open, but f8 looks kinda OK.</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D810-Part-II-Wildlife-and-Landscape-primes-and-zooms/Best-Landscape-lenses-for-D810</p>

<p>So I guess either you got a right lemon, or they got a unusual peach.??*</p>

<p>*Please excuse the fruit..:-)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I think Samyang have an issue with their quality control (or lack of!). I had to send my first sample of 24mm f/1.4 back because it was badly decentred, the replacement was much better and I've no complaints.</p>

<p>I've tried the 14mm Samyang a couple of times at trade shows, and have been reasonably impressed with the IQ, right out to the corners on a D800. However, that was under less than ideal testing conditions - i.e. quick handheld snaps at high ISO. But I did use it wide open, and the corners seemed acceptable to me even at f/2.8. I'm afraid I discarded the shots since I already have the 14-24mm Zoom Nikkor and was just curious how the Samyang compared.</p>

<p>My only advice would be to give Amazon a chance to replace the lens and see if the new sample meets requirements. If not - well you gave it a fair try.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>MM If the Samyang does not give you what you expect from it, and a Nikon 14-24mm is to expensive, then maybe Sigma 12-24mm DG HSM Type II could fill the bill ?</p>

<p>You could just try one on your camera at a store maybe... ?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Actually the Nikon 18-35mm AF-S is quite wide. If currently your widest lens is 21mm, the jump from 21mm to 14mm is huge, as each mm or two in that range makes a pretty big difference. It is very possible that regardless of the lens' optical quality, a fixed 14mm could easily be too wide and not very useful.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The new Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC should be available soon; saw a review this morning that showed that the lens compares quite favorably with the 14-24/2.8 - at 60% of the cost. I own the 16-35/4 and am quite happy with it.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm in the same situation. I want something wider than my 24mm PCE for my D800E. I've ruled out the Samyang 14mm. I really don't want the bulk of the 14-24mm Nikon but right now it is the best option. Since I don't have an immediate need, my plan is to sit tight and see if Sigma comes out with something this year. The Nikon 18-35mm AFG is a very good lens and would probably work for me, but I'm holding out for f2.8 for awhile longer.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[allan_jamieson2]

Strangely enough Amazon UK didn't even offer me another lens as they say they have suspended all sales of that lens by themselves

due to another customer complaining that the lens sent to them was not as described, maybe they got lucky and bought a whole batch of

decentred Samyang 14mm lenses!

 

If I really wanted to, I would just save up for a Zeiss 15mm but kind of hope that Nikon or Sigma might bring out something in that kind of

focal range. The Nikon 16-35mm would be ideal if it were definitely sharp, the Nikon 18-35mm would give me a good 18mm lens for a bit

more than the cost of the Samyang 14mm and be a good lightweight lens for any walks, replacing my Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 28mm

f1.8g. Nikon 14-24mm and Tamron 15-30mm have filter and weight issues but then again so does the Zeiss 15mm, no easy options with

this kind of lens!

[John Crowe]

<p>Tough decision. I enjoyed using the Nikon 14/2.8 for 6 years after only being able to go as wide as 17mm for the previous 15 years. The 14/2.8 does suffer noticeably from "moustache" distortion which I always had to work around to minimize the effect, especially with architectural subjects. Very sharp and contrasty with excellent colour rendition. Transition of colour/tone in skies could sometimes be odd.</p>

<p>I sold the 14 specifically so I could buy the Canon 17 TS-E with which I could correct for converging perspective lines in landscapes and architecture. When my subject is not moving (which is more often than not) I use the 17 to shift and stitch images to provide an effective view of a 12mm lens (getting my ultrawide view back) with the added bonus of getting medium format sized image files for large prints. </p>

<p>I have never been a huge fan of filters and have always been used to not being able to use them. Bulbous front elements don't deter me from getting the images that I want. I even have a Nikon 8/2.8 for those rare subjects that benefit from its use.</p>

<p>Being at similar price points I know I would not chose the Zeiss 15 over the 17 TS-e. I have considered adding the Nikon 14-24 or Sigma 12-24 for those occasions that make shifting the 17 TS-e too difficult, or impossible.</p>

<p>I also considered the Samyang 14mm but have read too many stories about poor longevity/poor product quality in their lenses.</p>

<p>Although I like the idea of a 16-xx zoom I know I would always have it set at the 16mm end and that it would still not be wide enough, so I just remind myself of that when I start considering one.</p>

<p>They won't let me refer to this site here but if you search for "Zeiss 15mm review" you will find a very interesting comparison of the Zeiss 15, 18, Canon 14/2.8, 17 TS-e, 16-35/2.8, and Nikon 14-24/2.8. I have always been lead to believe, here in the Nikon forum, that the Nikon 14-24/2.8 was perfect but I guess every lens has its drawbacks, and it is much larger than I thought. I handled a Canon 16-35/2.8 recently and was shocked by its size and weight too. However I would never discredit any lens just because it is big and heavy. If it gets the job done, it gets the job done.</p>

<p>I have floated back and forth between Nikon and Canon the last decade or so and pretty much find myself right in the middle now, again, with a 5DII and three Canon lenses, and a D3300 and four Nikon lenses. Of course the Nikon lenses get used as much or more on the 5D II as well. Yeah I know its "only' a D3300 but the sensor certainly gets the job done for me. Using a Nikon 35 PC to shift and stitch with it as well...detail is awesome! </p>

<p>No easy options, like you said. Have fun in your search. </p>

<p> </p>

[keith_b1]

<p>The Zeiss 18/3.5 Distagon is another choice at 18mm. It's a notch smaller--shorter, really--- than the Zeiss 21mm, and has the same overall snappy color and ultra performance at the center. The edges of the 24x36 frame are another matter; sometimes you can get it acceptably sharp all the way across, other times it's a bit funky at the sides, sharpness-wise. Must have to do with curvature of field. I'm still experimenting.<br>

Technically, my Nikon 14-24 is the better lens, test chart-wise.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`ll never understand why so many complains about the 14-24. If there is a lens where the size&weight is justified, it is the 14-24.<br /> The Zeiss 15 is even bigger&heavier, just to accommodate 95mm filters (and no AF). Yes, it`d be nice to have a filter slot for the 14-24... and VR, or a tripod feet on the 24-70, or a fixed focal length on the new Micros, or... (for those who really need them (!), there are already maaaaany third party filter attachments for the 14-24). The question is if this features are really essential, in detriment of comfort and effectiveness. I think they are not. <br /> <br /> I`m not specially devoted to zooms, but I have learned that the small zoom range on the 14-24 is quite useful; 14, 16, 18 makes a difference when shooting that wide, specially when I shoot architecture indoors. I definitely don`t want to have two or three lenses on the 14-21mm range. It has been proved that a 14mm prime "could not be better" than the 14-24 @ 14mm (a 24mm prime for sure is). <br /> <br /> In another thread, there was a claim about the fragility of the front "bulbous" element. Right. But there is a big protective hood to minimize that risk, the front element is significantly recessed into that hood. Image quality demands it. Is there any fast lens that good with a flat front element? Sincerely, I find it to be of a very good design.<br /> <br /> Is it expensive? For sure it is, but no more than a D800, or a 70-200VR, or a 85/1.4, etc. BTW, I don`t see the need of releasing a new 14 or 16mm Nikkor. Maybe a 17-35/2.8 updated version for pro use.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Jose, well put! The 14-24mm is not nearly as big as some of Nikon's very popular lenses. Considering the zoom range and aperture, and exceptional IQ (in line with the primes), it represents an exceptional all around value. But I guess a good copy of the Rokinon 14mm lens is a great value as well. Allan, your best bet may be to wait until the Rokinon becomes available again to see if you get a better copy.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I`ll never understand why so many complains about the 14-24.</em></p>

<p>It is a popular lens yet one which is quite specialized in applications. I believe many people bought it mainly because it got famous for its image quality and not so much because they wanted to get down to 14mm. If it were possible to make a 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/2.8 of 14-24 level image quality, I believe the 14-24 would have stayed a specialist lens (if they had made it at all) and the improved 17-35/2.8 (or a 16-35/2.8) would have taken the popular spotlight. I know that personally I've mostly used the 17-24mm part of the 14-24's range, finding 14mm too extreme for all but a few cases. In fact I think the 20-35/2.8 got shifted into 17-35/2.8 and then into the 14-24/2.8 as a result of the popularity of the smaller DX format and not so much to answer to the needs of FX/35mm users. Of course, there are exceptions and those photographers who specifically want to, or need to, use 14mm, but those exceptions can't explain the popularity of the 14-24.</p>

<p>For landscape, 14mm gives the sensation that the Earth curves in front of one's feet in the foreground, and at least for me it almost makes me legs give in; I don't like it. For interiors it is sometimes necessary to use an extreme angle of view to include all the features of the room e.g., for real estate advertisements, but again the extreme angle of view of the lens gives an impression of space that isn't quite the same as viewing it in person. I think good architectural photography should faithfully convey the visual sensation of being there, and yet show the aesthetics of the architecture in a beautiful way. If there are parallel lines those can have a strong convergence in 14mm images but when viewing the same room with my own eyes, I don't notice those lines; the sensation in person is completely different. The "wow" effect can be there, but I have to ask whether the images are such that one would want to look at them for a longer time. I have one 14mm landscape shot on my wall and because of the mass produced frame that I used for it I had to include more of the curving foreground than I would have preferred to (due to the aspect ratio of the frame). I can't bear to look at it to be honest and I will probably crop it from the bottom and have it custom framed to get the right aspect ratio for the cropped shot - by leaving out maybe 10-15% from the bottom it becomes quite nice. In fact I find 14mm shots cropped to 1:1 or 4:5 aspect ratio to be quite pleasing given the right subject, but including the whole 2:3 image with 114 degree angle of view is too much.</p>

<p>If you are really committed to the idea of extreme wide angle photography then probably there is no better lens to work with than the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor. One thing that I would like to see in updated version is the fluorine coating which Nikon has been putting into their latest supertelephoto lenses; e.g. when photographing flowing water or waves in the foreground, the 14-24's front element can get splashed and I would imagine the fluorine coating would give some protection to the front element in such situations. From Nikon's interviews it seems they only have immediate plans on using it for long lenses, which is a pity.</p>

<p>Here are a few 14mm FX landscape shots using the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor:</p>

<p> /> />

[james_scholz]

<p>I shoot architecture for a living. I used the Nikon 14-24 for several years but kept having flair problems and somewhat soft corners. After having to reshoot an interior job with lots of windows at night to deal with the flair I bit the bullet and bought the Zeiss 15. After processing the first job I never looked back, the Zeiss was that good. Now the Nikon sits on the shelf as a backup if necessary.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>In another thread, there was a claim about the fragility of the front "bulbous" element. Right. But there is a big protective hood to minimize that risk, the front element is significantly recessed into that hood.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, please zoom the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S to the 14mm end and take a look at the front element, which is well above the two low sides of the built-in, scallop-style lens hood and just a bit below the two high sides. When it is as wide as 14mm, you essentially cannot have any hood or it would have been really huge and wide so that it wouldn't vignette.</p>

<p>I just put my 14-24mm/f2.8 and 18-35mm AF-S on a scale, without any lens cap. They are 983 and 387 grams, respectively. The 14-24 is over 2.5 times as heavy. The 18-35 uses an HB-66 lens hood that weights 20g; even if you add that for a "fair" comparison, the 14-24 is still well over twice as heavy.</p>

<p>I know one lens is a faster f2.8 while the other is a vari f3.5-4.5, but I almost never use the 14-24 wide open at f2.8 anyway, as I prefer to stop down to gain depth of field and quality.</p>

<p>If you like the super wide, the 14-24mm can be a great tool, but its zoom range is limited and doesn't cover anything in the popular and more moderate 24-35mm range. Therefore, essentially you must have at least another wide-angle lens to cover that range, and that adds more weight. On the other hand, a 16, 17, or 18-35mm zoom can be the only wide zoom you need.</p>

<p>As the OP finds out the hard way, when you use a high-pixel DSLR such as the D800 and D810, you cannot skim on lenses. Any flaw is greatly magnified.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>I think once we are in the "ultra-super-wide angle" group (say, from 14 to 21mm, rectilinear), we should decide between two options; 1. the widest, or 2. a more moderate, versatile lens. Nowadays the widest are the 14mm ones, which ought to be large and heavy (with that bulbous front element), the second are the 16/17/18mm ones. There are several options in the later, but if we opt for the widest, the offer is more limited.</p>

<p>If we look for such wide field of view, as John Crowe said above, the size and shape of the lens should not deter from getting the images we´re looking for. I think a 14mm lens is not for everyday use (other than professional, I mean). The Zeiss is on pair with the 14-24 (<a href="http://3d-kraft.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D127:uwa-comparison%26catid%3D40:camerasandlenses%26Itemid%3D2">this article is worth a read</a>); it is a $3000 lens (no AF, no zoom), slightly bigger and lighter than the 14-24 ($2000). The Samyang or Rokinon could be interesting for its price, but looks like we can`t expect a similar performance. I don`t know other lenses in that range.</p>

<p>Personally, I see a 14mm lens (<em>the current Nikon version is the 14-24</em>), could be perfectly added to a 18-35 type zoom. You can have a versatile 16/17/18-35 zoom (I agree with Shun, a 16-35 could be wide enough for most needs), and look for an even wider option if needed. Personally, the 14-24 has never been a substitute for the 17-35/2.8, it is the update of the 14/2.8AFD, made to kill two birds with one stone, maybe with the intention of forcing the journalists mind to a "wider view".</p>

<p>For those interested, below is a comparison between the 14-24 and the 24-70. Both are about the same bulk, but if the hood is used (here is a shorter, non petal one), the 24-70 gets much bulkier.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>Thanks for all the replies. I've thought about this long and hard and whilst I would have preferred something like a 16mm prime lens to add to what I already have, that isn't really an available option at this point in time. I would have loved the Zeiss 15mm but currently I am really doing this as a hobby, so that would be kind of extravagant!<br>

So, I checked a few online dealers in the UK and checked out what stock they had new and used and found one company with a near mint Nikon 16-35mm lens in stock. I was a bit wary about this lens mainly due to the mixed online reviews, so I asked them to take a few pictures with the lens on a D800 (same as I have) at f8 and 16mm. Got the pictures this morning and I have to say for what were just a few images in their rear car park, it did look pretty good when I looked at it in Lightroom, good sharpness into the corners and into the middle of the frame. Way, way better than the faulty Samyang at any rate, so I agreed to buy that lens and I should have it by tomorrow.<br>

It gives me a few more options as to what I can do with my photography but I am not intending to get rid of my Zeiss 21mm any time yet, the images from it are pretty special and I like my Nikon 28mm f1.8g too, definitely a keeper that one. Hopefully, I can get a chance to get out up to the Highlands again sometime in the next few weeks and get a chance to put it through its paces. <br>

I got one other piece of good news today which I might post elsewhere on the site and that is that my 3 Legged Thing Frank Tripod is being replaced with a brand new mark 2 version which should also be with me tomorrow! I bought a mint mark I version of this tripod about a year ago via eBay from someone who worked for the makers and last time up in Glen Coe, 2 weeks ago, one of the legs fell off the tripod! Temperatures were minus ten that day and things were freezing up a bit, must have been a lot of moisture in the air, even my Arca Swiss ballhead was sticking. Anyway, full marks to 3 Legged Thing for standing by their products, even with secondhand items, not many companies would do that. They are based in the UK and produce a very interesting range of tripods which are mainly named after famous rock guitarists. For its size it is a very strong and stable tripod, they describe it as a studio tripod but it is very capable outdoors when it has all three legs that is!</p>