UWA For D700

JasonPC

JasonPC

Messages
1,873
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
Help me choose an UWA for my new D700 please. Been pondering for a while and cant decide. The ones I'm thinking about, and a few pros and cons, are:

Nikon 14-24 - expensive, apparently awesome IQ, no filters (I use a B&W 10 stop), easy to damage?

Nikon 16-35 - reasonable price, very good image quality, can use filter, VR, seems to be out of stock everywhere

Sigma 12-24 - lowest price, mega wide, no filters, some negative reports re: IQ

I can't make up my mind. I can afford any of the three but if the Siggy does the job then it leaves money for other stuff. I also really enjoy the wide angle stuff so messing around at 12mm sounds fun.

Any advice, feedback, suggestions please? I'm off on holiday in a few weeks so need to decide fairly soon.

Thanks!
 
I have the 12-24 dx and in my opinion, if the build quality and IQ are anything to go by from the 12-24, I will not hesitate getting the 14-24 if / as & when I move to a full frame body.
 
14-24 is a very nice lens with very good IQ.
I have a Lee SW150 which is very good but has a heavy price tag, though there are a couple of slightly cheaper alternatives. The lens has a short petal lens hood which gives a little protection but it isn't a lens to swing about with abandon!
The lens cap isn't particularly secure as it pushes onto the hood and doesn't have much to cling onto.
The SW150 comes with a soft lens cap which pulls over the front of the lens and provides a much more satisfactory means of protection.
If the funds are there for lens and the Lee SW150 then I would say you can't go wrong as long as you don't require a large range of filter options.
 
Last edited:
Hitech also sell a filter holder for the 14-24 and a range of filters including their 10 stop nd
 
What about the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 ? That's a very good lens, takes 77mm filters.
 
I had been struggling to make the right choice too but after reading page after page of reviews I have decided on the:

'Nikon 16-35 - reasonable price, very good image quality, can use filter, VR, seems to be out of stock everywhere'

Totally agree about the stock problem!! I haven't called Grays yet though.

Please update the thread on what you decide on and why.
 
The sigma is great fun, I had it and loved it, but I needed filters and there was only one sensible choice and that was the 16-35..

I had it along side a 24-70, but soon sold the 24-70 as I just never used it. The 16-35 does everything I need, and the VR is a real bonus, especially in low light.
 
I have spent years working up to lenses that I feel happy and comfortable with. Whilst camera bodies come and go more frequently, my lenses tend to stay with me for a long time. When I had a DX body I used a Sigma lens, which I was happy with at the time. I later bought a 14-24mm when I changed to FX. This lens a a cracker, and I would not go back to anything else at the wide end now, even given that the OP is correct about its vulnerability etc.
 
If I could affordthe Nikkor 14-24, I would upgrade my Sigma 12-24 to it but until I start doing the lottery again and win big, I'm very happy with the Sigma. I'm not a great user of filters so have never found the rear gel filter system that the Sigma uses to be a problem. For really wide angles, I use a Sigma 8mm fisheye
 
Thanks for all the feedback guys, I really appreciate you taking the time to post.

I've decided to take a punt on the Sigma. I've ordered from WEX as I know their service is great and it'll be sorted if the lens isn't up to scratch. I discounted the 14-24 due to the price tag and a mix of my clumsiness and paranoia. I'm also intrigued by seeing how 12mm looks on full frame.

I guess I'll see tomorrow, after I've had a muck around with the lens, if I've made a good choice.
 
I had a Siggy 12-24 until recently. Pretty decent and impressive distortion control. Acceptably sharp without being mind blowing. 12mm is stupid wide. Prepare to see many a set of tripod legs or your feet in shot!
 
if the 12-24 doesn't work out I'd add nother vote for the 16-35mm. Stunning results and takes normal Lee holder with WA ring. A lens that is much easier to live with than the other two.
 
A friend of mine has the Sigma 12-24 on his D700, and while both he and I would agree it's no top end Nikkor glass, for the type of stuff it gets used for it does the job beautifully at a sensible price.

I bought one yesterday from a TP member to use on my 5d2, I would have liked the Canon 17-40, but I know it's not a lens I'll use too often, I don't expect super sharp wide open shots corner to corner, so I'm happy to save the £100-£150 premium and gain a bit more at the wide end too.
 
Another vote for the 16-35mm f/4, ive owned the other 2 but the 16-35 is the sensible choice, i would have the 14-24 again but only if i could afford it alongside the 16-35mm as the VR on the 16-35 is great.
 
Mountaineye said:
if the 12-24 doesn't work out I'd add nother vote for the 16-35mm. Stunning results and takes normal Lee holder with WA ring. A lens that is much easier to live with than the other two.
Click to expand...

I use a standard ring and only get minimal vignette at 16mm and it's easily fixed in LR
 
Osmo said:
I had been struggling to make the right choice too but after reading page after page of reviews I have decided on the:

'Nikon 16-35 - reasonable price, very good image quality, can use filter, VR, seems to be out of stock everywhere'

Totally agree about the stock problem!! I haven't called Grays yet though.

Please update the thread on what you decide on and why.
Click to expand...

Bumping due to above request.

The Sigma has been and gone. Not at all impressed with IQ. I tracked down a 16-35. Much better, sharper and my 10-stopper is now back where it belongs.

:)
 
Hi Jason,

Thanks for updating..the 16-35mm is still my number one choice too. Glad to see you are enjoying yours. I've bought a 24mm f/2.8D as an interim measure but still keeping my eyes open for a 16-35.

Cheers
Osmo

PS I spoke to Grays of W and they don't have any stock and couldn't tell me when they would get any more either!
 
Aye, the 16-35 is a sensible choice. I'd also place the Zeiss 18/3.5 on the table.
 
Osmo said:
Hi Jason,

Thanks for updating..the 16-35mm is still my number one choice too. Glad to see you are enjoying yours. I've bought a 24mm f/2.8D as an interim measure but still keeping my eyes open for a 16-35.

Cheers
Osmo

PS I spoke to Grays of W and they don't have any stock and couldn't tell me when they would get any more either!
Click to expand...

There is one in classifieds right now at a bargain £700 :thumbs:
 
Thanks. Was already onto the one in the clasifieds, awaiting delivery now! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top