Wide Angle - Nikon (FX)

[lamar328]

Hey everyone,

I've got a DX Nikon at the moment and looking into a nice wide-angle for it. I'm planning on upgrading to a D700 (Full-Frame) and would like to know what your experience with wide-angles on an FX camera has been. Is there vignetting, extra distortion, etc..?

I've heard that the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8 is nice because of its wide aperture. It seems to look fairly nice on a FX, but wondering if any wider would be a mistake? Although something wider such as a 12mm might be cool on a DX sensor, when put on an FX it might be overkill.

Thanks

 

[MrLogic]

No, 12mm isn't necessarily overkill, but it is extremely wide. Sigma has a decent 12-24mm lens as I'm sure you know, which was "designed for use with full frame digital cameras."

12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM - Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com




And yes, the 14-24 "vignettes" - like any other wide angle zoom, but you can easily correct it in DxO Optics Pro.

 

[iAstonish]

Are you looking for something ultra wide specifically? A 14-24mm is going to be a lot different on a full frame. The 24mm will basically turn into the 14, so you do the math haha

That said people do use 8mm on crop sensors, so whether or not it is an overkill is ultimately up to you.

 

[ann]

hm, on a full frame the 24mm is a 24mm and the 14 is a 14

 

[kundalini]

The 14-24mm f/2.8 works wonderfully on the D700. The front element is quite bulbous, so care it needed when dangling from your lens strap to avoid bumps even though it has a permanent hood. Also, it will not accept any screw-on type filter. Lens flare is problematic if pointed towards the light source.

The 24mm will basically turn into the 14, so you do the math haha.

This is incorrect.

 

[iAstonish]

hm, on a full frame the 24mm is a 24mm and the 14 is a 14

You know what I mean, and if you didn't I meant in relation to his current crop sensor.

 

[iAstonish]

The 14-24mm f/2.8 works wonderfully on the D700. The front element is quite bulbous, so care it needed when dangling from your lens strap to avoid bumps even though it has a permanent hood. Also, it will not accept any screw-on type filter. Lens flare is problematic if pointed towards the light source.

The 24mm will basically turn into the 14, so you do the math haha.

This is incorrect.

So you're saying the 14mm on a 1.6 crop factor body won't look similar to a 24mm on a full frame? Because I'm pretty sure a 14mm on a 1.6 crop would equal out to 22mm. So the 24mm on a crop sensor would equal out to what? 16mm on a full frame? For comparisons sake and the lens given, I think it was a simple way of conveying the difference for the original poster. Excuse the 2mm difference.

 

[MrLogic]

The 14-24mm f/2.8 works wonderfully on the D700. The front element is quite bulbous, so care it needed when dangling from your lens strap to avoid bumps even though it has a permanent hood. Also, it will not accept any screw-on type filter. Lens flare is problematic if pointed towards the light source.

The 24mm will basically turn into the 14, so you do the math haha.

This is incorrect.

So you're saying the 14mm on a 1.6 crop factor body won't look similar to a 24mm on a full frame? Because I'm pretty sure a 14mm on a 1.6 crop would equal out to 22mm. So the 24mm on a crop sensor would equal out to what? 16mm on a full frame? For comparisons sake and the lens given, I think it was a simple way of conveying the difference for the original poster. Excuse the 2mm difference.

3mm, actually. Nikon doesn't have ~ 1.6x crop sensors like Canon does. DX ~ 1.5x crop factor.

The equivalent field of view would be about 21-36mm on DX.


21mm is much wider than 24mm, IMO.

 

[iAstonish]

The 14-24mm f/2.8 works wonderfully on the D700. The front element is quite bulbous, so care it needed when dangling from your lens strap to avoid bumps even though it has a permanent hood. Also, it will not accept any screw-on type filter. Lens flare is problematic if pointed towards the light source.



This is incorrect.

So you're saying the 14mm on a 1.6 crop factor body won't look similar to a 24mm on a full frame? Because I'm pretty sure a 14mm on a 1.6 crop would equal out to 22mm. So the 24mm on a crop sensor would equal out to what? 16mm on a full frame? For comparisons sake and the lens given, I think it was a simple way of conveying the difference for the original poster. Excuse the 2mm difference.

3mm, actually. Nikon doesn't have ~ 1.6x crop sensors like Canon does. DX ~ 1.5x crop factor.

The equivalent field of view would be about 21-36mm on DX.


21mm is much wider than 24mm, IMO.

I didn't know the crop sensors were different, thanks for the info. Yea, I agree 3mm makes a difference, but for comparison's sake, since he has the lens he could generalize it to get an idea.

 

[David Dvir]

You won't really need much wider than 14-24. It's a really great lens. At 14, there is some barrel distortion already so any wider would be a bit too warped. I have occasionally used my 10.5 fisheye on the FX bodies for a bit of a crazy shot. But you've got to cut the hood off the fisheye in order for you to fill most of the frame since it's a DX lens.

14-24 is definitely the way to go.

 

[ann]

no i didn't know what you meant, as if i did i wouldn't have made a comment.

on full frame cameras the lens are what they are, on cropped sensor they vary from 2 to 1.6 , 1.5

 

[shaunly]

Hey everyone,

I've got a DX Nikon at the moment and looking into a nice wide-angle for it. I'm planning on upgrading to a D700 (Full-Frame) and would like to know what your experience with wide-angles on an FX camera has been. Is there vignetting, extra distortion, etc..?

I've heard that the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8 is nice because of its wide aperture. It seems to look fairly nice on a FX, but wondering if any wider would be a mistake? Although something wider such as a 12mm might be cool on a DX sensor, when put on an FX it might be overkill.

Thanks

Do the quick math. DX sensor are 1.5X cropped. Which means on a DX sensor 50mm X 1.5 = 75mm equiv on a FX sensor. 12mm on a DX is the equiv view of 18mm on FX. So to answer your question, FX sensor is the way to go if you want true ultra wide. No DX lens has the performance of a 14-24 f/2.8, 16-35 f/4, or 17-35 f/2.8.

 

[kundalini]

..... No DX lens has the performance of a 14-24 f/2.8, 16-35 f/4, or 17-35 f/2.8.

I don't think the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 is a slouch.

​

Just my 2¢.​

 

[djacobox372]

My experience is that ultra-wides are expensive!

I replaced my DX 10-20mm sigma with a 3rd party 17mm prime for a couple hundred bucks. I also have a 20mm ais nikkor that works amazing on the d700.

The 14-24mm is awesome, but it's also nearly 2 grand.

 

[lamar328]

My experience is that ultra-wides are expensive!

I replaced my DX 10-20mm sigma with a 3rd party 17mm prime for a couple hundred bucks. I also have a 20mm ais nikkor that works amazing on the d700.

The 14-24mm is awesome, but it's also nearly 2 grand.

Eh thanks for the comments everyone! Ya, I was already aware of the cropped sensor dilemma nearly everyone's been discussing. My question was really geared towards the experience people have had with the 14-24 and any recommendations they might've had, but everyone's reply has been a help!

For djacobox, haha my jaw dropped when I saw the price tag. I was way over my head. As I said before, I'm using a DX camera, and I'd rather invest the money by buying an FX camera. It would defeat my purpose of wanting to use the wide-angle on an FX in the first place. Ah, well thanks anyways to you and everyone else who still helped me out!
In the mean time I got a nice 50 f/1.4 which will keep me real busy

out of curiosity, who makes you're 17mm prime?