Wide angle advice

Messages
62
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
    Pip
    Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Country Flag
I would like to supplement my 24-70mm f/4 S Z lens with a wide angle lens. The alternatives seem to be the 20mm f/1.8, the 17-28 f/2.8or the 14-30 f/4. I mainly shoot travel, landscapes and street scenes with the occasional portrait. Any advice would be much appreciated.
 
Maybe you could start by whittling down the list of possible lenses a bit?

You have zooms and a prime and various apertures on your list. If you want a prime your list gets very short and if you want to use a zoom for handheld shooting in lower light or with less dof then the list gets short again.

So prime or zoom?
f1.8 or f2.8 or f4?

And knowing what camera you have could help too? Nikon is it?
 
Take a look at the Viltrox 20mm 2.8, tiny little lenses and punches well above its weight, and exceedingly affordable at £144
 
On the face of it, a large aperture will be relatively pointless on a WA lens, in that you are so much less able to achieve a shallow dof if that happened to be a goal. But if you shoot in poor light, of course a wide aperture can be a bonus.

A zoom will tend to have a weight penalty, but if it has a range that overlaps with other lenses, that may reduce the need to swap lenses so often.

One thing is certain - you can't cater for all circumstances, & neither should you want to. If you don't require the utmost light-gathering capacity, that 14-30 f/4 you mentioned might be a useful bet that could be on the camera a lot of the time.
 
On the face of it, a large aperture will be relatively pointless on a WA lens, in that you are so much less able to achieve a shallow dof if that happened to be a goal. But if you shoot in poor light, of course a wide aperture can be a bonus.

The op doesn't mention either low light or astro but if these are possible uses a f1.8 lens might have an advantage.
 
If you're currently using a f4, then I assume you're not seeking a wider aperture for your wide lens, in which case the 14-30 f/4 gets really rave reviews from Ken Rockwell.
 
Maybe you could start by whittling down the list of possible lenses a bit?

You have zooms and a prime and various apertures on your list. If you want a prime your list gets very short and if you want to use a zoom for handheld shooting in lower light or with less dof then the list gets short again.

So prime or zoom?
f1.8 or f2.8 or f4?

And knowing what camera you have could help too? Nikon is it?
Yes, sorry, I have a Z6ii and don’t shoot in low light very much.
 
I use a viltrox 16mm f1.8. Not the smallest of lenses but amazing performance, unbeatable at its price point
 
Personally, I'd go for the 14-30 zoom. The extra 2mm of width makes a visible difference at such short lengths and the flexibility a zoom gives over primes is a bonus!
 
2mm is certainly visible, so is the difference between f4 and f1.8. Besides the 14-30mm isn't sharp at f4, needs stopping down to f5.6. That makes the difference even more obvious, viltrox is sharp from f1.8.

Depends if OP needs that f1.8. I certainly do for the night sky.
 
I mainly shoot travel, landscapes and street scenes with the occasional portrait.


From the OP.

Yes, a wider aperture is useful for wide field astro, hence my 14mm f/2.8 for the Nikon DSLRs.
 
Those are very wide genres. You could argue even wide field astro fits within landscapes. I recently travelled to Norway for shooting auroras, so that kinda thing part of "travel" too for me.

I just gave him an option that he hadn't thought about and one I personally feel is great. Having owned the 14mm f1.8 in past I don't personally shoot that wide very often. So I'm happy with 16mm being my widest lens.

Having said that the new laowa 10mm f2.8 is super tempting :D

They are all good options, just depends on if OP needs/wants a fast lens and if he does, will he want to own two separate lens or one.

p.s. I'm not a Nikon shooter. I pair my 16mm f1.8 with a 20-70mm f4 (and a 70-200mm f4). That's my landscapes and travel kit, along with a 35mm f1.4.
But that's just me, not saying it's the right or wrong way....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Take a look at the Viltrox 20mm 2.8, tiny little lenses and punches well above its weight, and exceedingly affordable at £144
Was just about to suggest this. I had the excellent 14-30, but found I rarely wanted wider than 24mm so sold it in favour of the Viltrox 20mm for the rare occasions I need a bit wider.
 
Last edited:
I have to say viltrox 16mm does indeed look interesting. Whether you need a zoom or longer options is a different matter. I probably would want at least 20mm to go along with it.
 
The 14-30 was the second lens I bought and the most used one. The reviews point out that it is weaker past about 22mm but on a z6 I can’t say that I notice it which is handy cos about 28mm is my favourite WA walk about FL.
Very light and compact.
I also have a bright 24 prime ( Samyang 24/1.8 on EtZ21 ) but it gets little use.
I don’t do astro btw.

For most touristy type shots I find a WA zoom far more useful than a prime. Don’t waste mpx by over wide framing.
If you need the absolute best IQ then possibly not the best choice: 14-24/ 2.8 trinity zoom or Z or other primes better on paper
 
Last edited:
Another option is the DX 12-28.
This gives FF equivalent of 18-42.

Lightweight and a good range. It has VR.

The penalty is that it’s an APS C lens so images will be cut to about 10MP.
 
Back
Top