Best Ultrawide for Nikon FX? (3 choices)

Carbonangel

Carbonangel

Messages
614
Name
Ric
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys,

So im looking for a new Ultrawide lens for my D800.

I've whittled it down to 3 choices:

Nikon 16-35 f4 VR
Tokina 16-28 f2.8
Nikon 14-24 f2.8

Price is not really a problem, but if id receive better results for losing the 2mm (over the 14-24) then id be happy going for the cheaper lens.

I know the 14-24mm is awesome, i've rented a couple before but are the other 2 lenses suitable choices also?

The 16-35 is a lot lighter from what i read which would be an advantage plus i can use filters (without buying the special LEE system) but its f4, i like to shoot handheld but the VR may help here.

but i've also used a Tokina lens (11-16mm) on my DX bodies and its hands down the best lens i've ever used.

So i have a dilemma, which is best? does anybody have any opinions which come with experience using the above?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
If price is not a problem, it has to be the 14-24 2.8. If weight is a problem, then you need to decide that for yourself. Some people like heavy gear, others don't, but optically, that is the best lens in your line up.
 
Best? Almost certainly the Nikon offering. You've missed another option (which I can recommend from personal experience), the Sigma 12-24. Not as fast as the Nikkor but an extra 2mm wider (which can make a difference at such short focal lengths). Contrary to what some people say, it can be used with filters, although not the usual in front of the lens types (which makes grads and pols unavailable), instead, there's a template in the box for cutting gels to fit the clip behind the rear element. IMO, this lack isn't a problem - the polarising effect at such wide angles is so uneven across the frame that it looks rather weird and I don't use grads!

If you would like a full size file of the boat one to pixel peep (a most unrewarding exercise IMO), PM me your e-mail addy - be warned that it'll be a 6.18MB file though!

As with all Sigmas, QC problems have been known (although I believe they have improved recently) so it's best to try before you buy. This may add a few quid to the purchase price but will save a lot of hassle should your copy (maybe from a cheaper, Far East supplier) be an iffy one.

I should add that it can be used in Dx mode (giving it the EFL of 18-36) which does allow you to use filters in front of the lens. The front cap is a bucket type which slides over the (fixed) hood but it has a removeable "normal" cap and you can screw filters/adaptors into that.

A few test images.

f/10
GPN_6634.jpg


As you can see, very slight vignetting in the top corners and slight softness in the bottom ones - possibly due to focus distance as much as the lens.

Bucket cap fitted, no filter.
GPN_6871.jpg


Severe vignetting - frame using the gridlines in the viewfinder to know where to crop to.

Bucket cap and polariser fitted.
GPN_6872.jpg


Even more vignetting! Easy enough to crop out. Although a pol was fitted, I didn't rotate it to get any pol effect - it's bloody cold outside at this hour and I was shooting from the back door, facing due east, so straight towards the light source - not a direction a pol would do much to anyway!

Specs and an idea as to price here http://www.devoncamera.co.uk/index.cfm/product/sigma-12-24mm-f4-5-5-6-ex-dg-hsm-ii-lens-186 .
 
Ive owned the 14-24 and its immense but i settled on the 16-35mm f/4 VR because i need the VR, a lot of the stuff i use this lens for is interior shots of Stadiums at F/8-f/11 at night time and without upping the ISO i need the VR to shoot handheld at 1/30th sec or even 1/15th as i cant use a tripod when the grounds are open to the public and in public places, couldnt carry the added weight of the tripod to be fair either
 
The 14-24 is the best optically but is very wide. The only think I ever use it for is interior shots. Once I am in larger rooms or outside I tend to use the 24-70. Unless you have a specific use for the 14-24's 117 degree field of view the 16-35 may be a better overall choice.
 
ah5168 said:
The 14-24 is the best optically but is very wide. The only think I ever use it for is interior shots. Once I am in larger rooms or outside I tend to use the 24-70. Unless you have a specific use for the 14-24's 117 degree field of view the 16-35 may be a better overall choice.
Click to expand...
But for my circumstance above, sometimes 16mm isnt wide enough so i have to stitch images together, now if Nikon made a full frame 12-35mm f/4 VR that would be the dogs bits.
 
It should really depend what your shooting I'd say, the 14-24mm/16-28mm(or maybe a used Nikon 17-35mm?) would be well suited for moving subjects but the VR on the 16-35mm would be more useful for landscapes hand held and as you say filter use its much easier/cheaper.
 
Gary Coyle said:
But for my circumstance above, sometimes 16mm isnt wide enough so i have to stitch images together, now if Nikon made a full frame 12-35mm f/4 VR that would be the dogs bits.
Click to expand...

Surely an 8-300 with switchable rectilinear correction would be better? f/2.8 (or faster) of course. And priced at £150 (although if such a lens could be produced and was as good as I would want, I could be persuaded to add a zero to that!). Dog's danglies? My specs would turn that around to GOD's danglies!
 
On a D800 I'd go with what it optically best, the 14-24mm. The 16-35 would do if I absolutely had to have filters.
 
"optically the best" seems to depend on the range and appature your using to me going from many net reviews I'v seen.

The opinion I see on the net seems to be that the 14-24mm is optimised for the wide end of the range while the 16-35mm is optimised for the middle of the range.
 
Tokina 12-24 is a Dx lens and the OP is after Fx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top