Wide angle for FF

[Nwcid]

Moving to FF I did not think I was going to miss my 11-16mm Tokina lens much since I only used it on occasion. Turns out the last few days I have wanted to go wider then 24mm.

I have used the Tokina at 16mm and it does an ok job, but leaves a bit to be desired so I am on the hunt for a FF wide angle.

It appears that I have 4 main choices:
Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 $1900
Sigma 14-24mm 2.8 $1300
Sigma 12-24mm 4f ART $1600
Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 $950

For those that have tried, how significant is 12 vs 14mm? I have seen comparative pictures, but it is still hard to judge that way.

Is there something other then the fixed aperture in the ART lens vs standard?

At the moment I do not intend to shoot in light low enough that my D850 can not not compensate. I would like as wide as possible, unless there is a significant change in quality. Right now my focus is shooting large groups of people and landscapes, with future plans of doing some architectural work.

Any guidance on how to chose would be appreciated.

 

[480sparky]

Why a zoom?

 

[Gary A.]

In general terms, the 2mm dif is about a step.

 

[Nwcid]

Why a zoom?

What advantage does the fixed have? I have always primarily had zooms to cover a bigger range of options.

 

[480sparky]

Why a zoom?

What advantage does the fixed have? I have always primarily had zooms to cover a bigger range of options.

Smaller.
Lighter.
Faster.
Better IQ.
Fewer components to fail.
Cheaper.

 

[Nwcid]

Maybe I am looking in the wrong spot, but I only see a couple of options;
Nikon 14mm F2.8 which is $1800
Yongnuo 14mm F2.8, is showing "pre-order" on many sites with a cost of about $550
Rokinon 14mm F2.8 which is about $800
Sigma 14mm F1.8 at $1600

Any recommendations or other options?

 

[Nwcid]

Now to add more complexity, Tamron just introduced the 15-30 2.8 G2 for $1200.........

 

[Destin]

The Tamron 15-30 is easily the best wide angle zoom on the market for Nikon right now.

Shameless plug: I have a Nikon 20mm 1.8G for Sale if you’re interested. 20mm on full frame is equivalent to 13.33mm on your 11-16, so still quite wide. Extremely sharp lens, and FAR cheaper than the zoom options.

 

[Nwcid]

The Tamron 15-30 is easily the best wide angle zoom on the market for Nikon right now.

Shameless plug: I have a Nikon 20mm 1.8G for Sale if you’re interested. 20mm on full frame is equivalent to 13.33mm on your 11-16, so still quite wide. Extremely sharp lens, and FAR cheaper than the zoom options.

I am very interested in the range of the Tamron, still concerned with it not being wide enough.

I did see your lens, but 20mm is not wide enough, the 16mm I have now is not wide enough.

 

[Destin]

The Tamron 15-30 is easily the best wide angle zoom on the market for Nikon right now.

Shameless plug: I have a Nikon 20mm 1.8G for Sale if you’re interested. 20mm on full frame is equivalent to 13.33mm on your 11-16, so still quite wide. Extremely sharp lens, and FAR cheaper than the zoom options.

I am very interested in the range of the Tamron, still concerned with it not being wide enough.

I did see your lens, but 20mm is not wide enough, the 16mm I have now is not wide enough.

What are you shooting that 15mm on full frame isn’t wide enough? Are you not able to take a step or two back?

There really isn’t anything wider than 15mm that won’t have lots of distortion. Wider than 14mm and you’re getting into fisheye territory on full frame.

 

[Nwcid]

What are you shooting that 15mm on full frame isn’t wide enough? Are you not able to take a step or two back?

There really isn’t anything wider than 15mm that won’t have lots of distortion. Wider than 14mm and you’re getting into fisheye territory on full frame.

Large groups of people is my main thing right now, secondary is architecture. I purchased my 11-16mm to use with my D7100 when we took a trip back east. It was great at capturing large city senes and buildings. I know that 11mm DX is approximately equivalent to 16mm FX.

In theory with groups of people, you could step back, but not always the case. This set includes some of the group pictures I took recently that I wish I could have gotten a little bit wider, Horns Mt Spike camps | Facebook In reality the 15-30mm would probably be perfect for this type of work, but I am also considering some architecture work, possibly for business. Trying to capture a room, you often do not have space to back up.

Looking online the 12-24 Sigma and 14-24 Nikon are not too distorted at their low ends.

 

[480sparky]

Large groups of people is my main thing right now, ......

Ultrawides are very bad for getting large groups of people. The distortion would be terrible.

 

[Derrel]

Large groups of people is my main thing right now, ......

Ultrawides are very bad for getting large groups of people. The distortion would be terrible.

When I read the comment "large groups of people" and ultra-wide I thought, "Oh,no,not those kinda' pictures!" I see that 480sparky has already addressed that issue, correctly too I might add. Short focal lengths and groups of people typically look...awful...unless you'e going for that cliche shot where you get the group realllllly close to the camera and go for a wildly-distorted look. Otherwise, the short focal length gives huge amounts of what is known as apparent perspective distortion, where things that are close look big, and things that are even a tiny bit farther away look small,and insignificant. Also, the edges of the frame are weird looking....only objects smack-dab in the center of the frame area look relatively normal...and the rest of the frame looks distorted. if you have to photograph a larger group of people, it's better to move the camera back, rather than shorten the focal length too much. I'd say 28mm to 30mm is the limit for me; below that, and the corners of the frame look awful, and the second row of people look small compared to the closer people. I would much,much rather use a 35mm semi-wide and stand back farther. Ultra-wide angle lenses are typically not good for group pictures of people.

 

[Nwcid]

Large groups of people is my main thing right now, ......

Ultrawides are very bad for getting large groups of people. The distortion would be terrible.

That is where the rub lies then isn't it. Do you completely miss the shot due to distortion, or do you capture the image to tell the story?

For example, this is one of the images I was talking about. This is with the D850 and the 11-16, set at 16mm. Yes there is some distortion, but 20mm, 24mm or even higher will not get that shot. I was as far back as I could get. I am interested in other options for capturing images like this.

 

[480sparky]

I was thinking you were taking 'set-up' shots of groups. Like they're lined up for a 'formal' shoot. "Journalistic' shots like the one you posted are a whole different animal.

Unfortunately, when you get into ultra-wides, especially rectilinears, you will have to accept distortion. It's simply unavoidable when you're trying to force a 3-dimensional world onto a 2-dimensional image.

You might be able to correct it in post, however. Your next step might be to consider a ('full-frame', or 180° corner-to-corner) fisheye and correct the distortion in post.