Wide angle Lens

peterjones00

peterjones00

Messages
679
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone recommend a quality wide angle lens full frame? I would also consider 3rd party lenses… Just need to know I have got the right one ...thanks
 
A 16-35mm on a FF is about the same as a 10mm lens on a cropped sensor camera. So yeah, I would say thats pretty wiiiiiiide.
 
Money no object, how about the Nikon 14 - 24mm?????
 
Prime or zoom?

The Nikkor AF 35mm f/2D is the best all-round medium wide angle - if that's not wide enough there's an AF 24mm f/2.8D which is also very good. The new AF-S 24mm f/1.4G is also rumoured to be awesome, but so is the price - over £1,000.

Best value for money - though it ain't cheap at around £1100 - is the Nikkor AF-S ED 24-70 f/2.8G - I seriously think this is the best lens I've ever owned.

If you need wider, the Nikkor AF-S ED 14-24 f/2.8G is also brilliant - several members own them and I've also owned one - too wide for me so I sold it and went back to my old 17-35 f/2.8...
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I'd love a nikon 14-24, but just don't have the funds. As it is, I use a Sigma 14mm, which is good for the money, but is prone to lens flare on a colossal scale!!! :gag::eek:
Click to expand...

I remember it well - we were issued those with our D1x kits and they lasted about six months before we all revolted and handed them back to stores and demanded Nikkor lenses instead.
 
If you like wide I don't think that you can get a wider non fish eye than the Siggy 12-24mm.
 
I'm very happy with the Nikon 18-35mm on my D700 (around £200 second hand). Small-ish, light and excellent IQ and takes 77mm filters.
 
Arkady said:
I remember it well - we were issued those with our D1x kits and they lasted about six months before we all revolted and handed them back to stores and demanded Nikkor lenses instead.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say full frame has seen a small resurgence in this lens' popularity - I'm using one myself on my D700. You might know something I don't, but at least it focuses close and is less flarey than the Nikon 14mm.

TheBigYin said:
Well - it's not silly wide, but it's certainly quality, and as you're using it for ladscapes, f3.5 shouldn't be a problem... so how about the Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/18 in nikon mount?
Click to expand...

I've got one of those on the seller's market...I'd class it as verging on silly wide myself :lol:
 
Mud said:
I think it's fair to say full frame has seen a small resurgence in this lens' popularity - I'm using one myself on my D700. You might know something I don't, but at least it focuses close and is less flarey than the Nikon 14mm. :lol:
Click to expand...

Less flarey? We found the opposite - the Sigma was almost unusable due to this in many circumstances where the Nikon was OK (that means that where the Sigma was bad the Nikkor was 'just' OK - where the Sigma was good, obviously so was the Nikkor)...we're lucky in that we can trial all sorts of kit side-by-side and can make on the spot comparisons rather than listen to other photographers' experiences and hope for the best.

We (the Army) bought Sigmas as it was thought they'd be good enough for the few occasions that they're used. I and three other Phots were given Nikkor 14mm's to trial side-by-side. We had to shoot using both lenses on jobs where wides were needed, then all the images were pooled and assessed by a panel headed by the Command Master Photographer. That panel then made the choice based on the imagery submitted, so that personal prejudices weren't a factor.
 
Arkady said:
Less flarey? We found the opposite - the Sigma was almost unusable due to this in many circumstances where the Nikon was OK (that means that where the Sigma was bad the Nikkor was 'just' OK - where the Sigma was good, obviously so was the Nikkor)...we're lucky in that we can trial all sorts of kit side-by-side and can make on the spot comparisons rather than listen to other photographers' experiences and hope for the best.

We (the Army) bought Sigmas as it was thought they'd be good enough for the few occasions that they're used. I and three other Phots were given Nikkor 14mm's to trial side-by-side. We had to shoot using both lenses on jobs where wides were needed, then all the images were pooled and assessed by a panel headed by the Command Master Photographer. That panel then made the choice based on the imagery submitted, so that personal prejudices weren't a factor.
Click to expand...

You might well be right - I've no direct experience of the Nikon 14mm prime, just the opinions and example photos from the reviewers and those on the lens lust forum at NikonCafe. You're giving me the exact opposite experience to all the testimonials I've read, but given you've done a direct comparison I can't imagine you're wrong. At least secondhand the Sigma is ~£300 and the Nikon ~£800!
 
Mud said:
You might well be right - I've no direct experience of the Nikon 14mm prime, just the opinions and example photos from the reviewers and those on the lens lust forum at NikonCafe. You're giving me the exact opposite experience to all the testimonials I've read, but given you've done a direct comparison I can't imagine you're wrong. At least secondhand the Sigma is ~£300 and the Nikon ~£800!
Click to expand...

Well that's another factor - we don't pay for our issued kit, you do (the tax-payer).

If I were buying my own I'd have to weigh-up the amount of projected use against cost.

I can justify buying the 24-70 and 70-200 for over a £K each as they're my mainstay lenses, but a lens that would spend almost it's entire life in the camera-bag?
 
How wide are we talking here? 35mm on full frame is 'wide' whereas 16mm is very wide.
 
Don't get me wrong... I'm in no mind to sell my 14-24. However. If I had to choose again now between the two, the 16-35 would probably get it. F/4 for landscapes is fine. VR for low light is also nice. However the key for me is filters. 14-24 fails pretty hard here, and the Lee system is meant to be silly expensive. If/when I have the money I'd like to own both, but like I say, given the choice now, I'd probably go 16-35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top