Ultra-wide lens for Nikon FX?

fernandoaf

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Vinhedo, SP
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hello all,

I'm a photography enthusiast for about two years now and I'm looking to move up from my Nikon D5100 to a full-frame body (probably the D600). I'm interested in buying a wide/ultra-wide lens for an FX body that can give me good IQ for a good price. After researching for some days this is what I came up with:

1) Nikon 14-24mm: the classic, huge and expensive lens with crazy sharpness. My drawbacks with this lens are its size, price and inability to put filters. All the rest seems to fit in with what I want.

2) Nikon 16-35mm VR: less aperture, but compensates that with VR. As sharp as the 14-24mm from what i've heard, and nearly half the price. Also, accepts filters. Are there any issues with it?

3) Nikon 18-35mm G: newest of them all, also relatively cheap. Its focal lenght seems a bit limiting for me, but then again I have never played with anything wider than my 18-55mm kit DX lens.

4) Sigma 12-24mm: I do not know much about this lens, except that it covers FX (!) and that it is also relatively cheap (!!). So, what is wrong with it? Or is it just one of these hidden treasures?

5) Tokina 17-35mm f/4: I also do not know much about this lens. It seems like a cheap knock-off to the Nikon 16-35mm VR but it might as well be worth it. Does anyone have it and can give me some info?

I accept all suggestions. I appreciate going as far wide as I can, if it does not compromise IQ too much. I do not care much for fixed lenses nor extremely fast ones. I'm thinking of buying the Nikon D600 with the 28-300mm "freedom" lens so consider that range covered.

Thanks guys! :D
 

480sparky

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
24,985
Reaction score
8,904
Location
Iowa
Website
pixels.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Try looking into the Nikkor 17-35 2.8 AF-D.
 

20belowphotography

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Location
duluth, mn
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
i got the nikon 14mm prime f/2.8 a few months back, and so far i love it. it's really sharp, light, and fast. i use it mostly for photos i try to intentionally distort and night photography. it's a little cheaper than the 14-24, and more importantly, smaller and lighter for when i'm backpacking or on a canoe trip. it can also accept rear gel filters. if you read the reviews some people complained about the lens cap, but i haven't had any issues so far. hope this helps.
 
OP
fernandoaf

fernandoaf

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Vinhedo, SP
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
480sparky: I pretty much disregarded the 17-35mm f/2.8 during my quick research since it is more expensive than the newer 16-35mm and without VR. Does it have any advantage that I may have overlooked?

20belowphotography: I like the prime too but since im on a budget it doesn't make sense to buy such a specialized lens. Thanks for the suggestion though.
 

480sparky

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
24,985
Reaction score
8,904
Location
Iowa
Website
pixels.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Why do you need VR in such a wide angle?
 
OP
fernandoaf

fernandoaf

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Vinhedo, SP
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Well, I would imagine even though I can hand-held with slower speeds with wide angle than I can with other lenses, VR would help me reach an even slower speed. Besides that, the 17-35mm is still more expensive. I guess I would consider it if I was shooting sports due to f/2.8, but I'm not going to use it for that.
 

Mach0

TPF Supporters
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
432
Location
203
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Well, I would imagine even though I can hand-held with slower speeds with wide angle than I can with other lenses, VR would help me reach an even slower speed. Besides that, the 17-35mm is still more expensive. I guess I would consider it if I was shooting sports due to f/2.8, but I'm not going to use it for that.

I wouldn't use that for sports.
 

480sparky

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
24,985
Reaction score
8,904
Location
Iowa
Website
pixels.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
The D600 is so good with high ISO, you won't need VR. Just bump the ISO to 800 or 1600 and you're golden.
 

Aloicious

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
452
Location
UT
Website
www.photographywild.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I've never missed VR or the ability to use filters on my 14-24 (though I don't really use filters on anything except the occasional polarizer, but polarizers get funky results on ultra wides anyways), really the price is the only downside of the 14-24, some might consider it's size a problem, but its really not THAT big....all due considering.

really the main reason for VR on ultrawides is for video stuff, if the choice were between an f4 lens with VR vs a f2.8 or faster lens without VR, I'd take the faster lens, the ability to get more light is FAR more useful (on any lens, though even moreso on an ultrawide)
 

cowleystjames

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
209
Reaction score
33
Location
Oxford, UK
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Never found a need for vr on ultra wides. The depth of field is pretty massive, unless at 2.8.that it doesn't seem to be an issue.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4
 

EONOnly

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
79
Reaction score
12
Location
Poland
Website
blurmyreality.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
VR on wide angles is just as useful as it is with longer lenses - I wouldn't normally shoot at 16mm below 1/15 even for static subjects with my D800, but with VR, at least half of shots at 1/2s are sharp.

14-24 is good for dynamic shots, but not for basically anything else - it's too big, to heavy and doesn't take filters (at least not easily). N17-35 2.8 is rubbish for the price - it's simply soft. New 18-35 3.5-4.5G is very good if you don't need VR and constant aperture - it's size and weight makes it a great lens for photographers on the go.

However, my wide angle lens of choice is 16-35 f/4G VR. It's very sharp (at least for the UWA lens), smaller and lighter than 14-24, it takes standard 77mm filters and it has a constant aperture - I simply don't like using variable aperture lenses. I use it with my D800 and D600 and I simply love it.
 

Most reactions

ClickASnap

New Topics

Top