Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Dear all, recently bought a D800 to complement my D300. I like using a wide angle lens, with the 300 i use a Sigma 10-20 which is aa superb lens full stop. however i would like a decent wide lends for my D800. there are some candidates around, a fixed 20mm nikkor, a Sigma 12-24, and there are a couple of nikon lens 16-35 and the 10-24 if i can rob a bank. Does anyone have any experience of wide angle lenses on a Nikon FX ( or a 3rd party lens on another make)??
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
I use a Sigma 12-24mm on my D3s and am very happy with it, useable wide open (bit soft at the extreme edges, as is the 10-20mm on my D200's) but stopped down a couple of clicks and it's excellent IMHO. there's a few examples in my portfolio and links to those shots in this FORUM THREAD.
Thank you, I think an opinion is better than most reviews!!!
Depending on how wide you need, i'd have to say the 14-24mm f/2.8. It can be a bit of a beast at first, but you soon get used to it. 'Downside' is only that you cant use filters
it really may depend on available funds!, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is most probably a better lens than the sigma 12-24, but at approx twice the price, would the (if noticable) difference be worth the extra cost?
When I changed to FX and had to ditch my Sigma 10-20mm, I opted for a Nikkor 16-35mm rather than the 14-24mm, purely on the basis that it had a filter thread while the 14-24mm did not. Kits are now available, however, to tack a filter on to it.
The 16-35mm is great but nothing will compete with the 14-24mm for all-round performance. That's why so many Canon shooters use it with an adapter.
I also use the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D if I am shooting landscape. It clearly beats any zoom for the obvious reasons and is a lovely small and light lens to complement the D800 (one of the reasons I downgraded from the D3s to the D800 was to rid myself of the grotesque bulk and weight of the D3s).
So, on personal experience I would heartily recommend the 16-35mm and the 20mm Nikkors but accept that the reason that I shunned the 14-24mm is really no longer valid.
Quote: It really may depend on available funds!, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is most probably a better lens than the sigma 12-24, but at approx twice the price, would the (if noticable) difference be worth the extra cost?
I havent tried the sigma 12-24 (i have the 12-24 DX Nikon version alongside the 14-24 FX) so unfortunately i cant really comment on a comparison as such, except for the obvious different in apertures available (the sigma being 4.5-5.6, i believe, and the 14-24 being a straight through 2.8). Obvioulsy there is a financial cost to the extra speed, but in comparing it to my DX equivelant, it certainly wins over that every time
Quote: I also use the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D if I am shooting landscape. It clearly beats any zoom for the obvious reasons and is a lovely small and light lens to complement the D800 (one of the reasons I downgraded from the D3s to the D800 was to rid myself of the grotesque bulk and weight of the D3s).
John, what obvious reasons?
I own both the 20mm f2.8 and the 16-35. Since buying the 16-35 I've not used the 20mm other than a side by side comparison. (must get it in the classifieds - its served me well, including a POTW but need to fund a D800 )
If you check out photozone.de, the mtf info of the 16-35 at 20mm is fractionally, better than the 20mm. My field experiences are, 16mm, a bit of distortion, but easily corrected, the accentuated by camera angle (no surprise). Above 18mm, it's an absolute belter, to my untrained eyes it's best seems to be 24-28mm. It handles flare FAR, FAR, better than the 20mm, has VR, not really an issue but I'm sure I will use it. The advantage over the 14-24 is it takes filters easily, no bulbous front element.
I would guess in ultimate performance the 14-24 will win, but bear in mind it's limitations .....and cost, if using for landscapes I doubt you will see any benefit in terms of performance, in the real world as you will be at F8-F16 ish.
BTW the 20mm is a super lens, it helped me a lot with discipline (ie framing right by using my feet).
Another vote for the Nikon 16-35.
Again depends on budget.
Would love the 14-24 or even the 14 but have other priorities the now
I use the Nikon 14-24 f2.8G on my D800. You can get some supurb photos from that combination.
Thanks for all of the opinions!!!
John, what obvious reasons?.
....but the "obvious reasons" are that any top quality prime is going to beat any top quality zoom at it's own focal length. On the other hand, a zoom does have the convenience factor of not having, in your words, to "zoom with your feet".
Yes, if I had to dispense with either the 16-35mm or the 20mm, I would get rid of the prime because the convenience factor of the zoom is, in any meaningful terms, worth more to me than the better sharpness and lack of distortion that I get from the prime. But, having both, there are times when I go for the superior quality of the prime. (Not that it necessarily shows to an untrained eye in the final print).
By the way, I would not attach any credibility to that website you mention.
But honestly John, at 20mm the 16-35 outperforms the 20mm, Slightly better resolution, and far less flare, my real bugbare with the 20mm F2.8. It's probably because the 20mm is a design over 20 years old.
16-35 (ok results at 21mm)
I'm not a lover of such reviews, and the conclusions on both lenses are way off the mark IMHO but the physical resolution is a good indicator.
I've been along advocate of using primes, but this lens changed my opinion, the discipline of having one focal length helped my landscape work enormously, but there are times a prime just has its limitations, where you physically can't get to the point to get the same field of view, to change the perspective. The 20mm is a faster lens by one stop, but does that really matter for landscape work?
I'm loathe to get rid of the 20mm, it's a stunning lens, but now I have the 16-35 I just won't use it.
To show what both are capable of:
this is with the 20mm F2.8 prime
And this is with the 16-35.
In both very very little cropping (just straightening the image, both were pretty spot on anyway).
The last 10 images in my PF are with the 16-35 ( I know I need to get out more).
Do you shoot wide open - or mainly at f8-11?
There is no wide angle prime or zoom that has anything like the corner quality wide open of central quality 1 stop down from wide open - because it is not optically possible.
Whether the wide open weakness shows depends in part how big you print - I assume you bought your D800 to print big
If you want to use fast apertures maybe you need to increase the budget. At f4 the difference between my 14-24 and 16-35 shows in the frame corners. By f8-11 there is no easy to detect difference.
Two possibilities are:
Zeiss 21mm Distagon f2.8
Samyang 14mm f/2.8
I know you'd rather have real user opinions but these seem to be pretty good.
I think Mark Bauer ( a member on this site ) uses the Zeiss 21mm with excellent results.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar