Best wide angle option d750

keeweeman

keeweeman

Messages
920
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys
At some point i want to replace my tokina 11-16mm lens with an fx wide angle lens to go with my d750. What are the best options currently available to me?
The lens will mostly be used to shoot landscapes and architecture, although ideally a wide aperture would be nice for the odd occasion where it is needed for low light/star shots etc and it has to have a filter thread.
Budget wise I have looked quite seriously at the nikon 17-35mm f2.8 so am willing to spend the cash on a decent lens if it justifies the money and that lens seems to tick all of the above boxes, however I am just quite aware that sigma and tamron in the past couple of years have really upped their games and are producing some excellent glass now so i just want to explore the other avenues available to me.
I have also considered primes but i am less keen on this option currently as i would quite like to build up a similar setup to the "holy trinity" first and then buy a couple of specialist primes (probably an 85/105mm for portraiture) to compliment those three lenses rather than relying solely on primes.
 
Disagree with David somewhat (sorry fella). Whilst the 14-24mm gets rave reviews it has a number of issues to be aware of which make it far from easy to use imo/e. It flares like there is no tomorrow, suffers with field curvature, especially at the wide end and has some impressive distortion at the wide end too. Add in that it requires extremely expensive filters if you use them and it has to be considered carefully. I don't know how the tammy performs as I've never used (or seen) one, but it will also take the mind numbingly expensive filters (as does the rather excellent tokina 16-28mm f2.8). Mind you the 14-24mm can be very sharp.

Consider the Nikon 16-35 f4 and the newest Nikon 18-35 AFS, the 16-35 has scary distortion @ 16mm but is other wise very nice the 18-35 is the true bargain here, excellent IQ and takes normal filters (but no weather sealing or VR). I prefer it to the 16-35, though rather wish I'd never sold my Tokina....
 
How much do you want to spend? That's probably the first and most important question!
 
minnt, neither of those two allow the use of filters which is something i did say i wanted in the OP.
budget wise i have a couple of options open to me so i am quite flexible on that front, if i were to look at the 17-35 f2.8 i would either go for a good quality used or grey, if i were to go 16-35 f4 i would go wex.
 
And re the mind numbingly expensive filters, LEE filters for any FX wide angle are ridiculously expensive, even the 16-35.

If you use screw in filters then yes, you're up the swanny.
 
Yes you can use a filter with any lens ;)

Anyway the 17-35mm is quite an old design now. I would go with the 16-35 or the 18-35 unless you really need f2.8 - by the sounds of things you wouldn't notice it 90% of the time and the D750 is really very good at high ISO.
 
this is my major concern with the 17-35mm and i did some looking to see if there was going to be a new model anytime soon but couldn't find anything to suggest there will be. Seems that the 16-35mm might well be the way to go then i suspect. It's just a shame that the tamron doesn't take my current filter system as it is a damn nice lens by all accounts.
 
I had the 16-35 f4 Nikon and loved it but needed to free up some cash so sold it (on here).

I bought (also on here) a Vivitar 19-35 f3.5 - ?? can't remember and find it not far off as good as the Nikon (if you're sensible with the apertures you use).

Certainly less distortion at the wide end.

Bargain price too.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I had the 16-35 f4 Nikon and loved it but needed to free up some cash so sold it (on here).

I bought (also on here) a Vivitar 19-35 f3.5 - ?? can't remember and find it not far off as good as the Nikon (if you're sensible with the apertures you use).

Certainly less distortion at the wide end.

Bargain price too.
Click to expand...

You did indeed. Great lens imo.
 
The 14 - 24mm Nikon is a very good option it does have some some slight draw backs like ghosting and the expense of purchasing filters but these are typical of most ultra wide angle FX lenses and these are easily offset by the Nikon's optical quality and the 114 degree field of view.

I hardly ever use mine for external architecture though and only really use it for interiors and try and avoid using it at 14mm because of the distortion in the corners, but it is always there if you need it.

If I didn't have the 14 - 24mm I would probably get the Tokina 16 - 28mm.

If you have a look at my website 90% of the interiors have been shot on the 14 - 24.
 
Last edited:
If you want the best image quality without worrying the bulkiness and expensive filters, get the Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8. Then next in line would be the NIkkor 16-35 f4.
 
I hope i can use my Tamron 15-30 sooner or later then i can post about my ipression, i already know it is bulky and need special filter holder and larger filters, but i already bought those large filters because i have Canon TS17 and Samyang 14mm, so going with Tamron 15-30 and worry about filters is very funny for me now, and i saw different filters and holders that are affordable, not so very expensive as many keep saying, i found a filter holder for Tamron at about $145-160, this is about nearly the doable of LEE filter holder for 100mm[4"], then i can't imagine how much is LEE filter holder for 150mm filters? even WonderPanda is very expensive, but i didn't buy those, and my large filters aren't LEE or Hitech, so i already solved the filter issue.

Tamron 15-30 is very sharp from all reviews i read, even they put it on par and rival to Canon 16-35 f4IS, i never hear/read about Nikon 16-35f4, but sounds only Canon 16-35 and Canon 11-24 are competing and winning over Tamron 15-30 in some areas, but still Tamron a winner in another areas, even they put that Nikon 14-24 which is a legend lens from Nikon behind Tamron 15-30, that alone made my decision, and i was very confuse if i should go with Canon 16-35 f4 or Tamron, finally i decided on Tamron as i may go with Canon 11-24 in the future so didn't want to have 2 UWA with only f4.
 
Thanks guys, i think a few people have overlook the OP and one or two of the other posts as i did state that being able to use my current filter system (the lee 100mm system) is a must. The nikon 14-24 and tamron are both out of consideration for that very reason. I use filters regularly and as such just doing away with them isn't an option for me and having already made a fairly large outlay on them i don't really have any desire to have to replace them after such a short time of having them for an even more expensive filter system. I did also state that i don't really want to go down the primes route at this juncture as i would prefer to add a couple of specialist primes at a later date when the need arises.

I think the best option will be the 16-35mm f4.

I don't want this reply to sound @rsey so apologies if it does but i did mention the above earlier in the thread.
 
keeweeman said:
I think the best option will be the 16-35mm f4.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would definitely get the 16-35, it's a fantastic all in one lens, and goes everywhere with me. If you want to spend less and don't need VR, get the 18-35.
 
The Zeiss is superb, the drawbacks are lack of autofocus, 82mm filter thread and fixed focal length. I don't consider any of these to be drawbacks personally, but they may be an issue to some. The 25mm f2 is also awesome, but it depends on how wide you are looking for. The 17-35 2.8 is still a good lens on a D800 and so I expect it should perform well on the D750. I have not used the 16-35 so can not compare it, but again it seems excellent and would be my choice if I used zooms.
 
Nguss said:
The Zeiss is superb, the drawbacks are lack of autofocus, 82mm filter thread and fixed focal length. I don't consider any of these to be drawbacks personally, but they may be an issue to some. The 25mm f2 is also awesome, but it depends on how wide you are looking for. The 17-35 2.8 is still a good lens on a D800 and so I expect it should perform well on the D750. I have not used the 16-35 so can not compare it, but again it seems excellent and would be my choice if I used zooms.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the 17-35 - I spent a lot of time looking at videos and reviews and settled on the 16-35. Then a 17-35 came up at a really great price and I bought it assuming I could always sell if I didn't get on with it.

Been very happy with the results from it and found the 2.8 useful at a family christening last year - dark old pub :(

The 16-35 and 18-35 are also cracking lenses according to all I have read.

Dave.
 
Totally agree, the 17-35 has a few things going for it. The 2.8 is good for night photography, it is very well made and is good for infra red photography too. I have one, but use primes pretty much exclusively (really just because that is what I am used to coming from film cameras) but the 17-35 is very versatile indeed and I have always been happy with the image quality from it.
 
Forgot to mention the Nikkor 20mm f1.8G, if you pop over and visit the D800 thread (last three pages) and check out Gregg's recent captures with his 20mm f1.8G I'm sure you'll be totally hooked (like me).........sublime quality from this AMAZING lens!
 
Interested to see some of your 11-16 images. Am considering this as my next purchase to go with my D7100 :)
 
macvisual said:
Forgot to mention the Nikkor 20mm f1.8G, if you pop over and visit the D800 thread (last three pages) and check out Gregg's recent captures with his 20mm f1.8G I'm sure you'll be totally hooked (like me).........sublime quality from this AMAZING lens!
Click to expand...
It looks like a lovely lens definitely but i don't really want to go down the primes route for this lens currently.

Nguss said:
One other option I completely forgot was the Sigma 24-35 f2. The Art lenses are superb but I have read little about this one.
Click to expand...
This one looks like a damn nice lens but isn't really wide enough for what i am wanting. I am currently saving for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 VR (hopefully the VR anyways) which would cover that same range anyways.

Ian W said:
Interested to see some of your 11-16 images. Am considering this as my next purchase to go with my D7100 :)
Click to expand...

There is loads on my flickr matey, I absolutely love it as a lens. I bought mine not long after it was released (it's the mkii model with the autofocus built in) and haven't regretted in. Very sharp, lovely contrast and so long as you make sure it is level when taking shots the distortion is very manageable even in camera (just don't point it up or down). The issue i have now though is i have taken the plunge to full frame and want to shift my lenses over accordingly. I want something equally as good or better than the tokina and don't mind being patient and saving for the right lens if it means getting exactly what i want.
 
keeweeman said:
It looks like a lovely lens definitely but i don't really want to go down the primes route for this lens currently.


This one looks like a damn nice lens but isn't really wide enough for what i am wanting. I am currently saving for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 VR (hopefully the VR anyways) which would cover that same range anyways.



There is loads on my flickr matey, I absolutely love it as a lens. I bought mine not long after it was released (it's the mkii model with the autofocus built in) and haven't regretted in. Very sharp, lovely contrast and so long as you make sure it is level when taking shots the distortion is very manageable even in camera (just don't point it up or down). The issue i have now though is i have taken the plunge to full frame and want to shift my lenses over accordingly. I want something equally as good or better than the tokina and don't mind being patient and saving for the right lens if it means getting exactly what i want.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for that. I'll have a look.

Do let me know if you plan to move the 11-16 on will you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top