Wide angle prime lens (Nikon)

Auraomega

Auraomega

Auraomega

Associate
Joined
22 Sep 2009
Posts
2,085
Location
Leicester
I'm trying (in vain) to decide on what lens to get next... I've narrowed it down to a wide angle, yay!

I want something wide for landscapes and to carry on my typical UWA style photos, it must be small physically as it's a throw in in my work bag along with my mini tripod, 85 1.8 and D3, it must also take filters, I have 77mm filters, but a step up ring would suffice if needs be. Manual focus isn't an issue as I will most likely just hyperfocal for landscapes and if I'm playing with perspective then it'll be a static object so manual is fine.

I've got my eyes on the 18mm 3.5, 20mm 2.8 and the 24mm 2.8. The 18mm is winning because it's the widest and means I have a UWA to use when the 24-70 isn't doing it for me, however I want to know if there is something else I should be looking at?

No Sigma, Tamron or other such third party brands, I'd only consider Nikon or a reasonably priced Zeiss or Voigtlander.
 
I managed to bag a lovely ai converted nikkor-N.C 24mm f2.8 for £40 about 2 years ago. Prices have probably gone up a bit since then though. It produces nice sharp images with my F5 on film. Haven't used it on digital as i have an olympus OM 24mm that is more compact and produces extremely good results. The nikon 20mm f3.5 is supposed to be very good from what i remember and the AI-s version of the 24mm f2.8 is supposed to be an improvement on the older pre-ai and AI version. The zeiss should be a distagon 25mm f2.8, which IIRC was considered poor when compared with the 28mm and definitely poor compared with the 21mm. (we're talkig 28mm f2.8 here not the hollywood f2.0) If you can find a zeiss 21mm in budget, that would be my no. 1 choice of wideangle prime. I've got a few zeiss lenses and all have been stunning performers. (all contax fit, distagon 35 1.4, plannar 85 1.4, vario-sonnar 35-70 f3.4)

This is from my pre-ai nikkor lens.
Kodachrome64.jpg
 
cokebottles said:
Definitely not interested in (from what I hear) the excellent Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 ?
Click to expand...

Auraomega said:
it must be small physically
Click to expand...

...

I'll keep an eye out for the Zeiss 21mm then along with the 24mm, at this rate my bag is going to be full of primes and nothing else!

EDIT:
That 15mm is an impressive looking beast!
 
Last edited:
On the back of DP's suggestion of the Zeiss 15mm I'd highly recommend looking at this comparison with the Nikon 14-24mm and the Samyang 14mm. I remember looking at it a couple of weeks ago and wishing I hadn't. The Zeiss looks to be a stunning piece of glass in every way. One thing the comparison does show is whilst not really coming out on top the Samyang is extremely good for the money. I know it's not your wish but it is quite interesting as to how well it competes at some levels...for the money.

http://www.3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2

Edit: I have however just googled the price of it so perhaps it's not exactly what you had in mind. Unfortunately what has been seen cannot be unseen so I'll do my best to put it out of mind just now.
 
The problem with the Samyang is the distortion ifs huge, and once corrected the FOV is much narrower and the images much softer. Contrast is also lower AFAIK.
 
DJ_Switch said:
I'd highly recommend looking at this comparison with the Nikon 14-24mm and the Samyang 14mm.
Click to expand...

Auraomega said:
it must be small physically as it's a throw in in my work bag along with my mini tripod, 85 1.8 and D3, it must also take filters
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I've played with most of the newer lenses out there working in a camera shop, the 14-24 is amazing but too big and heavy to put in my bag on the off chance, likewise it doesn't take filters. The Samyang has odd distortion in the centre which is the most important part of the image and it isn't really that small and again won't take real filters.

My favourite lens to date was the 12-24mm Sigma because at 12mm you can get some really interesting perspectives (as shown in my photo in the first post) but the colour rendition isn't up to Nikkor standards and it suffers from pretty bad coma, epic softness in the corners, big and heavy and won't take the all important filter.
 
I was referring to the comparison between the Zeiss 15mm, Nikon 14-24mm and Samyang as highlighting just how good the Zeiss actually is. I wasn't recommending the Samyang. I only commented that I was surprised by how well it did in comparison...especially considering it's sub 300. I agree...the distortion is quite bad. The Zeiss 15mm was the lens I was actually advocating...until I saw the price. :eek:

I'd be hard pushed to recommend something like the Nikon 14mm prime at the price it is and also considering the 14-24mm seems to better it. I guess it's still worth considering if you really need something considerably smaller than the zooms.
 
It's surprising that the 14mm prime is worse than the 14mm zoom, but somehow Nikon managed to do it! It's still pretty big though, certainly not 'small' and any sensible person would opt for the 14-24 all things considered.
 
Auraomega said:
:rolleyes:

I've played with most of the newer lenses out there working in a camera shop, the 14-24 is amazing but too big and heavy to put in my bag on the off chance, likewise it doesn't take filters. The Samyang has odd distortion in the centre which is the most important part of the image and it isn't really that small and again won't take real filters.

My favourite lens to date was the 12-24mm Sigma because at 12mm you can get some really interesting perspectives (as shown in my photo in the first post) but the colour rendition isn't up to Nikkor standards and it suffers from pretty bad coma, epic softness in the corners, big and heavy and won't take the all important filter.
Click to expand...



You can get filter holders for the Nikon 14-24, they are very good by all accounts. Of course this doesn't make a cheap setup but then there isn't a lens in existence that can really match the Nikon 14-24. You have to consider it as several different primes in one because over most of the focal length it is sharper than almost every other prime lens out there including most of the Zeiss, Leica, Cosina, Nikon Primes and Canon L primes - all rolled up into a single zoom lens that is cheaper than most of the exotic primes.
 
I'm aware of the Lee Filters, but that makes a big bulky lens even bigger and it was too big for my needs in the first place.

One of our other stores has an 18mm 3.5 which I'll be testing, I might just go with that, or grab the 20mm 2.8 for something small and the 17-35 for something filtered (but also metal, so no 16-35).
 
Most of the Nikon press under 24mm are really not up to scratch, the 14-24, 17-35mm 2.8 and 16-35mm f4 are much better lenses.

The Nikon 18mm is particularly bad. The 20mm was well received back in the film days but it didn't transition to digital sensors, still the pick of the bunch for wide primes.

Other lenses to soldier are the Nikon 24mm PC lens,not small but very sharp and very useful for landscape or architecture. The 24mm f1.4 is very nice.
 
90% of the reviews I read praise the 18mm and it still holds it's value, impressive considering it's a full manual lens, surely that says something?
 
I was looking at that 14-24mm yesterday just to get a feel for what these lenses are like, I unfortunately have no money for any camera stuff at the moment, and I was wondering how careful you'd have to be with that lens?

After reading a review and seeing pictures, the front element stands out a mile, and because it does stand out so much and is so curved, you can't really protect it with a filter. Would that put you off from using it? It's kinda nice knowing that my lenses are protected with filters.
 
None of my lenses have a protective filter and I've never needed one (plus try finding a 105mm UV filter for a reasonable price)!

The element isn't as exposed as it looks anyway, and unless you're swinging it around you can't really hit it on anything to damage it. Scratches, besides being incredibly hard to do in the first place, don't show up on photos anyway and won't cause any noticeable loss of quality; one of my old lenses hand a lovely deep scratch running down the front element but worked flawlessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom