Wide lens?

Wedge · 8 Feb 2012 at 18:34

Hey

Im looking for a wide lens, ive almost sold off all my old len's i had with my D90, now i have a D700 and Nikkor 24-70, and nothing else.

I want a 10-24 or 12-24 or similar, but dont know which one to get, the 2 nikon offerings seem to be DX format?

Advise welcome.

mangobreeder · 8 Feb 2012 at 19:12

Tamron 10-22, awesome lens, i have the canon copy, and its sharp as a pin, check out my chicago thread, for examples

adbp1 · 8 Feb 2012 at 19:32

if its dx your looking for then the Tokina 11-16 is the best on the market for its money.
qouted by ken rockwell "The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is the best ultrawide zoom available for Nikon DX cameras, better than even Nikon's more expensive 12-24mm AF-S DX"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

can be had for £455 if you shop around.

Wedge · 8 Feb 2012 at 22:51

Thanks guys, but i want a lens that will work with my full frame camera, not DX.

The nikon lenes state 'DX' which makes me warey, mango is the Tamron FX compatible?

D.P. · 8 Feb 2012 at 23:14

You need an FX lens, luckmilly Nikon excels at high quality wide angle lenses.

The best is the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, it is sharper than most primes in that range.
it is big, expensive, heavy and taking filters is awkward, but possible.
This is the perfect compliment to the 24-70, it is what I will choose when I go FF.
This is the lens that Pro landscape canon shooters sold up their Canon gear and switch to a D3x + 14-24 for.
14mm is crazy, crazy wide.

There is the older Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8, not quite as sharp or as wide, but takes 77mm filters. A bit of sample variance in this one. This lens is useful if need f/2.8 and easy filters, or prefer slightly longer over wider, but don't care about absolute IQ (the lens is still excellent and set records when released, just the newer 14-24 is out of this world).

Then there is the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR. This is good if you don't need f/2.8 and you want a hand holdable lens that takes filters easily. Again, the optics aren't up to the 14-24 but are still excellent.

There are 3rd party lenses but non of them get closer to the Nikkors, and bying a 3d party wide angle lens really defeats the purpose of owning a Nikon FX body.

Wedge · 8 Feb 2012 at 23:40

Cheers D.P

14-24mm is same price as my 24-70mm

Me thinks i maybe need to save a bit more moowla.

'if' you had to buy a 3rd party lens, which one would you go for, and which more importantly are FX compatible?

D.P. · 8 Feb 2012 at 23:58

Probably either the Zeiss 18mm ZF or 21mm. the 21mm is sharper but the 18mm is wider and more useful to me. Neither lens is cheap, both are manual focus, and neither are as sharp or versatile as the Nikon 14-24.

There is a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 which in theory is quite sharp but it has truely massive distortion which would rob a load of sharpness if corrected. Useless for architecture but not too bad for landscapes. It is Manual focus and has a boubous front element so adding filters is tough. I don't know if any of the filter attachment mechanism available for the Nikon 14-24 would work on the samyang.

Wedge · 9 Feb 2012 at 00:24

lol D.P, i was thinking more Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, for now.

I can afford 500 ish now, save for a year and get the nikkor, then sell the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina for 100 less than i paid on the bay once i have the nikkor

D.P. · 9 Feb 2012 at 01:10

There is a new Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8, but it is not that great and sells for 800-900GBP. I would choose the the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR for 800GBP.

There is a Sigma 12-24mm for FF, it is also normally around 700GBP. It is not a great lenses but is uniquely wide.

I would either await to buy the Nikon of your choice, or go with soemthing like the Nikon 16-35mm, Look for any of the above second hand though and should be OK. Buying a new Sigma/Tokina lenss and selling it a year later would not be a good idea, loosing you some cash. Nikons will hold their value better, sigma/Tokina work out nicely when purchased 2nd hand,and when you can test the lens before purchasing.

there are some cheaper options out there, but a little obscure. There is a Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 but it is pretty poor and still 400GBP. the Nikon AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G will work on a FF sensor form about 20mm but is a bit of a waste really, still about 70GBP The Nikon 16mm prime is terrible, avoid. Sigma have a 20mm f/1.8 prime hich a nice idea but the lens fails to deliver, pretty soft and lots of variance in copies. The Nikon 20mm f/2.8 could be worth a look. The predecessor to Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 was the 20-35mm f2.8, it is an AF-D lens and quite good. You will have to look for a 2nd hand one.
I am not familiar with any of the older 3rd part lenses but I doubt they are realyl worth parting cash for. Wide angle lenses are very hard to make on SLRs. Wide angle zooms are a modern invention really.

To really save money you can learn to stitch images To do this properly you really need a panoramic tripod head which is not cheap, or a TS/PC lens (just shift left and right to the max extent and grab 3 images, left, middle and right.)