UWA for D700.

E

EYE_ON_ME

Messages
1,378
Name
Brendan
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
Just asking has anyone got an UWA for the D700 which isn't the 14-24. The reason I'm asking because every time I look on google people are saying that about 10 different lenses are good, and I think my head is going to go BOOM :'(:help: sigma 15-30, sigma 12-24, nikon 16-35................
 
Depends entirely on budget.

If you have cash then the 14-24 is the ultimate or 16-35 very nearly as good and more versatile (I''d probably take the 16-35 given a choice).

Any of the other options are something of a compromise and only really you can decide what you want to compromise on. If you MUST have WIIIIIDE then the sigma 12-24 is your choice, if you want Nikon the 18-35 is a great lens but has some odd distortion which is an issue if you are shooting flat horizons or architecture. Personally I probably wouldn't bother with any of the 17-35's except the Nikon version.
 
The older Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 may be the one to go for as it is sharp, f/2.8 and takes 77mm filters. Don't bother looking at non-nikon.
I believe the 20/2.8D prime is also very good at a fraction of price.

Having said that Canon has exactly 0 (none) of good wide zoom lenses - so enjoy having the choice.
 
Been looking at this myself. Do you want to use filters? If so the Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 14-24 are more or less off the menu. I believe you can get some sort of adaptor for the 14-24 but that is daft money.

Personally the 16-35 is of most interest. It's very wide but has a decent range so just seems more useful to me but as gramps says there might be a quality issue to be aware of. Depends on your budget of course but I'm quite tempted to try and get hold of an older Nikon 18-35. They're well regarded if not quite as much as the other Nikons and seem to go on ebay for between £150 and £200. Seems worth a punt.
 
gad-westy said:
Been looking at this myself. Do you want to use filters? If so the Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 14-24 are more or less off the menu. I believe you can get some sort of adaptor for the 14-24 but that is daft money.

Personally the 16-35 is of most interest. It's very wide but has a decent range so just seems more useful to me but as gramps says there might be a quality issue to be aware of. Depends on your budget of course but I'm quite tempted to try and get hold of an older Nikon 18-35. They're well regarded if not quite as much as the other Nikons and seem to go on ebay for between £150 and £200. Seems worth a punt.
Click to expand...

This one? It looks far worse than Canon 17-40mm :gag:
 
16-35 is a great lens and the VR is usefull.
I had a 12-24 and whilst it was great fun and I got some great images from it, the lack of filters meant it had to go.
The 17-35 would be my next choice.
 
The 14-24 is a big ass lens too. But I love it. There are solutions for filters around its a little bit more costly.
 
EYE_ON_ME said:
Hi,
Just asking has anyone got an UWA for the D700 which isn't the 14-24. The reason I'm asking because every time I look on google people are saying that about 10 different lenses are good, and I think my head is going to go BOOM :'(:help: sigma 15-30, sigma 12-24, nikon 16-35................
Click to expand...

Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZF2 ... manual focus (piece of cake on the D700) ... :D
 
Martyn... said:
Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZF2 ... manual focus (piece of cake on the D700) ... :D
Click to expand...

:thumbs:


4820194005_5e0ed5058e_b.jpg
 
gad-westy said:
I don't see your point? I don't think a Canon lens will be much use to the OP.
Click to expand...

The point is that 18-35 looks ultra bad. If you don't get the humor, then I am not suggesting getting that awful Canon lens to Nikon users. Happy?
 
daugirdas said:
This one? It looks far worse than Canon 17-40mm :gag:
Click to expand...

There are also many other more positive reviews.

I have one and for the £180 it cost me it is fantastic, sharpness at f/5.6 and above is more than good enough for anything I'll ever print. The distortion is a bit of a pain but it is small and light and given it is 20% the price of the costlier Nikons that's a compromise I'll live with untill I can justify a 16-35.
 
daugirdas said:
The point is that 18-35 looks ultra bad. If you don't get the humor, then I am not suggesting getting that awful Canon lens to Nikon users. Happy?
Click to expand...

It is actually a well regarded lens, especially when taking it's price into account, both Tom Hogan and Ken Rockwell speak highly of it.
 
daugirdas said:
The point is that 18-35 looks ultra bad. If you don't get the humor, then I am not suggesting getting that awful Canon lens to Nikon users. Happy?
Click to expand...

But you seem to be basing this on one bad review. As Ned says there are many positive reviews for the lens. It's not as special as some of the other lenses being discussed here but it is good. Read some more reviews, particularly from people who have owned and used one. It's another option worth mentioning as it is less than a third of the price of any of the other Nikon ones mentioned yet is still a decent performer.
 
I'm using the Nikon 16-35 on my D700 and am very happy with it. Used a Sigma 14mm prime before, which is the widest non fisheye prime you can buy (2nd hand only now) and is a fun lens, especially with it's ability to focus really close up, but it suffered from terrible lens flare and chromatic aberration.
 
Thanks for all the replies, I would really like to use filters on it, so what does that leave me? Sigma 12-24
 
EYE_ON_ME said:
Thanks for all the replies, I would really like to use filters on it, so what does that leave me? Sigma 12-24
Click to expand...

Contrary to what some people say, you can use some filters with the Sigma 12-24, although they will have to be gels and cut using the template supplied with the lens then slipped into the clips behind the rear element. Makes pols and grads a bit hard but some people have managed to bodge large square filters onto the lens hood using blutak (or similar).FWIW, I believe the nikon 14-24 has the same system with all its limitations.
 
You can also use screw-on 82mm filters on the 12-24, although it won't go as wide due to vignetting.

If 20mm is wide enough, the 20-35 2.8 is well worth a look. Best build quality of any lens I've had so far and the IQ is great, takes 77mm filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top