- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So I'm putting in a budget request to go full frame (D700 or D3) but stuck on a wide-angle to opt for.
Cost is obviously a major factor in any business buy so i have to be mindful of overall expenditure, especially when you figure in a body to go with it.
The 14-24 is the dream lens because optically it's awesome and it's wiiiiiiide. Obviously it has it's pitfalls; no filter thread for CPL/ND filters and as with many lenses this wide, flare can be a big issue. Plus it's £1300 or so, a massive chunk of money that non-photographers may not see as a worthwhile spend in the grand scheme of things. But it's first on my list, although I'm not confident it'll be okayed.
Second on the list (sticking with Nikon) is the newer 16-35mm. The VR function is nice but not something that I see as essential, but it is a lot less expensive than the 14-24mm, so can be justified easier. I've read up on it on photozone.de and although they say build is as expected and overall IQ is very good (and it doesn't flare up as easily), it does suffer from vignetting and corner softness at the wide end. Obviously, the former can be corrected in software but the latter could be an issue.
There are other considerations, like the Nikon 17-35mm (expensive but nice) and the Tokina 16-28, which has its flaws (barrel distortion, lower build quality) but is much lower down the price ladder at £800, but is that £800 well spent or would I be left wanting?
Can't think of any more lenses that are FF and do the 14/16mm wide end on a zoom and I don't want to go down the prime route simply to keep kit amount down.
What do you guys reckon?
(or should I stay with DX and hope the D300s replacement ends up being a DX equivalent of what the D700/D3 can offer?)....
Cost is obviously a major factor in any business buy so i have to be mindful of overall expenditure, especially when you figure in a body to go with it.
The 14-24 is the dream lens because optically it's awesome and it's wiiiiiiide. Obviously it has it's pitfalls; no filter thread for CPL/ND filters and as with many lenses this wide, flare can be a big issue. Plus it's £1300 or so, a massive chunk of money that non-photographers may not see as a worthwhile spend in the grand scheme of things. But it's first on my list, although I'm not confident it'll be okayed.
Second on the list (sticking with Nikon) is the newer 16-35mm. The VR function is nice but not something that I see as essential, but it is a lot less expensive than the 14-24mm, so can be justified easier. I've read up on it on photozone.de and although they say build is as expected and overall IQ is very good (and it doesn't flare up as easily), it does suffer from vignetting and corner softness at the wide end. Obviously, the former can be corrected in software but the latter could be an issue.
There are other considerations, like the Nikon 17-35mm (expensive but nice) and the Tokina 16-28, which has its flaws (barrel distortion, lower build quality) but is much lower down the price ladder at £800, but is that £800 well spent or would I be left wanting?
Can't think of any more lenses that are FF and do the 14/16mm wide end on a zoom and I don't want to go down the prime route simply to keep kit amount down.
What do you guys reckon?
(or should I stay with DX and hope the D300s replacement ends up being a DX equivalent of what the D700/D3 can offer?)....
Last edited:
