Full frame advice!

Auraomega

Auraomega

Auraomega

Associate
Joined
22 Sep 2009
Posts
2,085
Location
Leicester
A little while ago I was burgled and lost all my camera kit, so I'm in the process of replacing everything, I'm trying to avoid buying the same stuff again and to buy better this time around and skip the stuff I never used :(

Everything I buy will be Nikon, on the off chance my stuff is found.

I've figured this time I'm going to grab an FX camera (looking at the D3 when the prices start going down), and I'm a bit stumped on what wide lens to go for. I love the effect you get from really wide lenses and used to pair my D300 with a Tokina 11-16, however on FX this lens effectively becomes a prime seeing as I'd have to use at 16mm, not to mention the fact using filters vignettes badly on full frame (or so I've read). I took a look at the 14-24 however without modding filters aren't available and if I'm spending that much I want to be able to use what I want with it.

I've been looking at primes, however the widest prime that it's reasonable to expect to find is the 18mm (the 13mm, while awesome, isn't going to happen), and this is expensive and might not have the wide effect I'm after (I haven't seen any examples to say otherwise).

Then there's the Nikon 16-35, wide, uses filters (and 77mm too, the thread of all my other lenses), however is only f4 (I'm aware that wide doesn't need to be fast, but there are occasions where it helps... however VR would balance it out)?

So here I am, stumped what to do for the best.
 
Buy the 14-24mm f/2.8. this is the reference wide angle 35mm lens, the very best you can buy. It is sharper than more or less every prime lens in comparable focal lengths, including Leica and Zeiss primes, it makes the Canon 16-35mm L look like a plastic toy.

It is true you cannot natively attach filters to the 14-24 but you don't want to be using a polariser on a lens that wide and you can buy external filter holders that work very well. If you purchased a D800 then the dynamic range is so much you could get away without a an ND grad in most scenes. Multiple exposures and exposure blending is also a good option. Which laves the only reason to need filters on the 14-24 is something like a 10 stop ND filter for long exposures. These don't need to be accurately alligned so you can just buy the filter and then have a homemade filter holder. However, the 3dpart filter holder you can buy are very good, just not very cheap.


The 16-35 f/4.0 is a fine lens and more practical being able to take filters, but it is not in the same ball park as the 14-24.

My choices would be:
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8
Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZF
Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED if you don't need the ultrawide and you fancy a wide aperture lens
Nikkor 24mm f/4.0 PC lens: for landscapes this may be better than the 14-24. Tilt shift lenses allow easy high quality sticking to make wide panoramic (just shift the lens left and right), and the perspective control will allow much better DoF and thus image fidelity.

it is rumoured Nikon is working on raplacement PC lenses including a 17mm model to match the Canon.


Also you need to think why you want a D3 over a D800. If you are primarily into low light or sports photography then I would consider a D3s, otherwise there is really no reason not to get D800, unless again you need the build quality for expedition photography in a jungle/Antarctica. If you are considering the original D3 then i would instead buy a D700, smaller, lighter, and cheaper for a near identical camera.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice.

I do want to use high NDs as I had just started to get into long exposure photography before my kit grew legs and what I saw, I liked very much.

From what I've read the 16-35 is as good optically as the 14-24, however I admit those extra 2mm on the wide end do appeal to me; I noticed on the 11-16 an extra couple of mm makes a huge difference when shooting really wide.

I do (did) weddings on the side and the more rugged, weather sealed body calls out to me, and in all honesty having 2 cards in mirror would put my mind at ease (lose photos once due to corruption, forever paranoid) not to mention the fact I shoot jets a fair bit so the speed is a plus. I had looked at the D700 but it didn't have the dual cards. The D4 is too expensive as is the D3s... I'm having to replace all my kit and the extra grand or so on the D3s could be better spent on a 70-200 2.8 over a couple of stops of ISO.
 
xaldub said:
+1 for the 14-24mm. No way is the 16-35mm as good optically ( still decent though I admit .. )
Click to expand...

As above, the 16-35 is good, but it is now where near the 14-24m. The Nikon 14-24 is one if the greatest lenses ever created for the 35mm film mount, including all Leica, Zeiss, Contax, Nikon, Canon L primes. You will not find a better lens that covers that covers those focal lengths. The only close lens is the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon.

e.g.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html
 
http://www.2filter.com/Leefilters/LeeSW-150_holder_filter_kit.html
This with the Nikon 14-24 is just about perfection.

EDIT:

of course the 14-24 is not the cheapest and if you definitely want filters then the filter holder makes sense and in total that all adds up. But I read you OP as wanting to invest in good quality equipment you wont want to upgrade from.

The 14-24 fits this bill perfectly. The 16-35 f/4.0 is a nice lens, but it just doesn't have the same edge to edge sharpness, microcontrast and it has more distortion. Correcting the distortion makes the lens more like an 18/19mm.

The 14-24 overall does much much better. If your only filter is a 10stop ND then you you can get a way with a bit of sticky tape and cardboard to get a homemade filter holder. The expesnive filter holder is just good for graduated filter that need to be carefully aligned.
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer: I don't know much about landscapes

DP, why wouldn't you use a polerizer with the 14-24?
I was planning to get one (when they come back in stock) to use for seascapes, I would have thought it may come in useful if your camera angle is low and the foreground is wet?
Also should act as 1 stop ND filter...
 
It's settled then, the 14 24 is the way ahead for me, I can live without the grad on the lens if I can have an ND, I'll just use my 28 70 for landscapes with a grad.

You can use a polariser on really wide lenses but you get an odd banding as the polarising effect only works at near 90 degrees to the light source, on a lens this wide you get a field of view where some areas are polariser, and other areas aren't and it looks a little off in my opinion.
 
I personally prefer 'proper' filters (AKA the screw in type) and in the past had all 77mm lenses so could easily get away with it. Drop in filters are great if you have lots of different lenses requiring different filter sizes, Lee is good though, better than Cokin but obviously a bit more expensive too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom