Wide angle lens options for a Nikon..

S

stevewestern

Messages
5,117
Edit My Images
Yes
I am soon going to be looking for a fairly wide angle zoom for my D750.
The obvious option is the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, but there are a few others out there, such as the Tamron 15-30 f2.8. I fear the Nikon 14-24 is a little out of reach...
So I am looking for your opinions, ideally from personal experience about what lenses to look at, and what might influence your decision if you were in my position.

The main use to start with is a new house build which will start with the demolition of an existing house, and I am hoping to document the entire process as a gift for the owners.
Winter on a building site will mean not a lot of light, and some exposure to rain, but given that I am a lightweight southerner not too much of the wet stuff. A tripod may not be practical much of the time obviously..

Both the lenses I mention are roughly the same sort of price (ie under £800 new) and the Nikon does pop up at around £530 secondhand here on TP which makes it a much more wallet friendly idea - I've not seen many used Tamrons anywhere.

So, what would you get, or at least look at ?

Many thanks for any suggestions !
 
I have the Nikon 18-35 for use with my d750. I compared this with the Nikon 16-35 at the time and went with the 18-35 as its much lighter and cheaper. Supposedly it's sharper on the wide end too. There's no vr but normally as these focal lengths, vr doesn't add much.
 
Couldn't agree more with the above post. I have the 18-35mm and it is astonishingly good considering the price it can be had for. The lightness is an added bonus.

The only thing that might have tempted me to the 16-35 would be if I were using a DX body as well as my FX one, because that extra 2mm might have been helpful when cropped.

VR doesn't interest me in wide lenses.
 
Hmm - I had forgotten about the 18-35, so thanks for the suggestion !

My one concern is will I miss the extra 2mm - I guess I need to look at what the 18-35 goes for and then the size of my wallet..
 
How about the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 if you don't mind a manual prime (if you want a UWA over a standard wide that is).
 
Another vote for the 18-35mm, very happy with mine on the D750. Regarding the extra 2mm, apparently 16mm is the weakest part of the 16-35mm demonstrating 'significant' distortion. The 16-35mm does have better coatings though so should be less prone to flare, not that I've found this an issue with the 18-35mm.
 
odd jim said:
How about the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 if you don't mind a manual prime (if you want a UWA over a standard wide that is).
Click to expand...

It's a thought Jim, but I'd rather go for a zoom.

I've actually put a thread in the 'Wanted' section for an 18-35 as it does seem to be the one getting most votes so far !
 
I bought a D750 this year and picked up a second hand 16-35f4 on here for £540. Really happy with it so far, very little distortion that Lightening can't deal with on import. Does suffer a bit from flare if shooting directly into the sun sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Sigma 12-24 is probably the widest zoom available for FF and is rather more affordable than the Nikkor 14-24! Extremely well corrected for rectilinear distortion but perspective is (as one would expect) quite extreme. Tamron used to make a 14mm f/2.8 prime which AFs perfectly well on a D750. Sigma's 8mm fisheye is quite fun too!
 
The 20mm 1.8 g is sharper than a pin
 
Nikon 16-35 all day long. You'll be glad of the extra 2mm over the 18-35, believe me! It's a fantastic, and in my opinion, underrated lens. My most used lens on my D810.

You'll also be thankful for the VR, very useful if the light isn't too good, as you can get away with a slow shutter speed for buildings as they don't usually move too much...!!
 
Last edited:
Again, thanks everyone for your input - I am still torn between the 16-35 and the 18-35.
Cost is likely to be the deciding factor, but then again, impulse is a terrible thing, and there is a 16-35 in the classifieds at present....
 
17-35 f2.8 - an extra stop and a stunning lens. Build quality such that you could play cricket with it.
 
Lensflare said:
17-35 f2.8 - an extra stop and a stunning lens. Build quality such that you could play cricket with it.
Click to expand...
Both the 16-35mm and 18-35mm have surpassed the 17-35mm optically. The only reason to choose the 17-35mm is if you want the f2.8 and/or build quality (although build quality of the 16-35mm is very good) and/or you have money to burn.
 
Simon Lund said:
I'm in the same boat as you really - can't decide between the 16-35 and 18-35G
Click to expand...

Not easy is it - I am sure I'll always feel the extra 2mm of the 16-35 will be missed, but then again it is a fair bit cheaper..
Good luck with choosing !
 
What is the field of coverage - forget the focal length, look at the angle of coverage, I bet there is little difference. The old 18mm f3.5 had the same angle of coverage as the 17-35 f2.8
 
stevewestern said:
Not easy is it - I am sure I'll always feel the extra 2mm of the 16-35 will be missed, but then again it is a fair bit cheaper..
Good luck with choosing !
Click to expand...

It's definitely not easy - the VR appeals to me although I'm not sure how useful it'd be on this wide a lens. I can get sharp shots at pretty slow shutter speeds with my 24-120. I find there's not always time for using a tripod and A shot is better than no shot!
 
Lensflare said:
What is the field of coverage - forget the focal length, look at the angle of coverage, I bet there is little difference. The old 18mm f3.5 had the same angle of coverage as the 17-35 f2.8
Click to expand...
100 degrees vs 107 degrees.
 
Simon Lund said:
It's definitely not easy - the VR appeals to me although I'm not sure how useful it'd be on this wide a lens. I can get sharp shots at pretty slow shutter speeds with my 24-120. I find there's not always time for using a tripod and A shot is better than no shot!
Click to expand...
I guess it depends how good your camera is with noise handling and whether you're happy to let ISO rise up if you don't have your tripod.
 
Had the 16-35, good lens but not perfect at 16-18mm. Not use did but there is a Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
 
cambsno said:
Had the 16-35, good lens but not perfect at 16-18mm. Not use did but there is a Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
Click to expand...
It's not a full frame lens.
 
Have had a few of the lenses mentioned firstly had the 14-24 which was nice but I didn't use it much so sold it then got a 16-35 which I used happily for over a year or so but bought an 18-35 after reading rave reviews on here and thinking as a light weight option it might suit me better. Found that I was never happy with the 18-35 after having the other two though so ended up going back to the 16-35 for work related stuff.

I did think about picking up an 18-35 again recently for my wife it's a decent enough lens and good value for money but for myself, my personal preference is the 16-35. All 3 are good, all 3 have there own little quirks, if you haven't already try them out before deciding on which one suits you best before you buy.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, trying them out isn't an option, but I now have an 18-35 on its way to me, am still winning another on eBay and expect to be outbid on a 16-35 shortly or will be bagging a bargain..!
 
stevewestern said:
Sadly, trying them out isn't an option, but I now have an 18-35 on its way to me, am still winning another on eBay and expect to be outbid on a 16-35 shortly or will be bagging a bargain..!
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you are lucky.....
 
Interesting (no idea what has happened to my quoted it...it has disappeared somewhere - the post that on the D700 DX wasn't automatically selected. It has been on each of my bodies, maybe it is just the higher end ones then. A quick switch in the menu will do it if it isn't automatic. Maybe it is a setting to have to initiate for it to happen. I haven't read the manual deeply enough to know).
 
Lensflare said:
Interesting (no idea what has happened to my quoted it...it has disappeared somewhere - the post that on the D700 DX wasn't automatically selected. It has been on each of my bodies, maybe it is just the higher end ones then. A quick switch in the menu will do it if it isn't automatic. Maybe it is a setting to have to initiate for it to happen. I haven't read the manual deeply enough to know).
Click to expand...
So the D700 wasn't a high end body in its day? :confused:

But as above, even if automatic I wouldn't choose to use DX glass on an FX body.
 
I'm happy with the 16-35 on the D800. Its a little soft in the corners stopped down but not really any worse than the 24-70 I have and it renders really lovely colours and resists flare well. I've yet to try a 20mm F1.8 but I find the zoom more flexible for landscapes
 
ST4 said:
I'm happy with the 16-35 on the D800. Its a little soft in the corners stopped down but not really any worse than the 24-70 I have and it renders really lovely colours and resists flare well. I've yet to try a 20mm F1.8 but I find the zoom more flexible for landscapes
Click to expand...
Another vote for the 16-35. I know a few people have said about soft corners, but my copy is fine! Might be a situation where you have to try a few copies.
 
Stu Meech said:
Another vote for the 16-35. I know a few people have said about soft corners, but my copy is fine! Might be a situation where you have to try a few copies.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I think it's probably more down to expectations and pickiness tbh. I'm one of the picky ones :oops: :$ :LOL:
 
boyfalldown said:
It was. There is a menu option on the D700 that prevents it from automatically entering DX mode if a DX lens was attached.
Click to expand...

Ah - so it was there, but there is a button to stop it from happening. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew the camera could detect which lens was fitted - t comes up in the shooting info on each image file. So the all the chap has to do is find the relative bit in the set up menu and change the option so it will automatically select DX mode when a DX lens is fitted.
 
snerkler said:
So the D700 wasn't a high end body in its day? :confused:

But as above, even if automatic I wouldn't choose to use DX glass on an FX body.
Click to expand...

It was - but the guy had the option reversed in his menu, unwittingly it would appear. the camera does do it.

Use of a DX lens on FX body - I agree, but what if it is the only body available and that is the lens you need and you don't have an FX version yet? You have the option of getting the shot, rather than going without.
 
Lensflare said:
It was - but the guy had the option reversed in his menu, unwittingly it would appear. the camera does do it.

Use of a DX lens on FX body - I agree, but what if it is the only body available and that is the lens you need and you don't have an FX version yet? You have the option of getting the shot, rather than going without.
Click to expand...
You probably would in this situation, but it wouldn't be through choice and I certainly wouldn't 'upgrade' from a DX to FX body just to use DX lenses on it ;)
 
snerkler said:
You probably would in this situation, but it wouldn't be through choice and I certainly wouldn't 'upgrade' from a DX to FX body just to use DX lenses on it ;)
Click to expand...

Unless you were going to change the suite of lenses over time as well.....or would you chop the lot and fork out £10,000 in one hit?
 
Lensflare said:
Unless you were going to change the suite of lenses over time as well.....or would you chop the lot and fork out £10,000 in one hit?
Click to expand...
Nope, as above I'd gradually upgrade my lenses first and then the body. By doing body first you're gaining virtually nothing in IQ (maybe slightly less noise) and more than likely losing resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top