Wide angle prime - Nikon

Which one?

  • Zeiss 21/2,8 ZF

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G AF-S

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Zeiss 25/2,8 ZF

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G AF-S

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Zeiss 28/2 ZF

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G AF-S

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Total voters
    18
Digifrog

Digifrog

Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hi TP'ers

I was wondering what wide primes Nikon users would recommend and trying to get feedback on prime candidates (no pun intended). This is a new step for me and have yet to trawl through the myriad of Youtube vids and reviews. The two at the top I guess would be the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and the Zeiss 21/2,8 ZF (a stellar lens but no AF) though both of these are a bit too pricey. I already own the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon so the premise here is to scale the weight back without compromising IQ. I'm looking at 21 to 35 mainly and ideally would need to be a Nikkor. It is I guess a budget dependent decision but if there are doubts against or serious recommendations for, then the balance of considerations will shift somewhat.

I've seen the 35mm f1.4G but is £1310. I've also noticed the 28mm f/1.8G which is a more modest £500 (and an ideal budget), but unsure of the quality. I'm tempted presently by the 28 but is it any good? Lens will be mainly used for architecture with maybe some landscape. The two Zeiss' primes (25 & 28) I've thrown in simply because their prices are less than that of the Nikkors (24 & 35) but MF, I'm not totally sure I want MF to be honest.

What do you think? Anyone own the Nikkor 28mm?

Cheers x
 
Image quality of the 28mm 1.8G is excellent, rich colours, contrasty and sharp wide open. I use mine a lot, more than the 24mm 1.4G I had in fact.
 
I've got the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 on a D800 and I'd still buy the Sigma 35. The Zeiss 25mm f/2 would be my Zeiss of choice if I was looking at that 24-35 type of focal length. The 28mm Nikon is nice enough with a decent price. A 24mm PC-E Nikon lens not worth considering?
 
Why not Sigma?
Its an incredible 35mm for the price. (That's if a 35 fits the bill of course.)
I was a brand snob until I started looking at Sigma, and given the price compared to Nikon it was a no brainer for me.
 
jpw said:
Image quality of the 28mm 1.8G is excellent, rich colours, contrasty and sharp wide open. I use mine a lot, more than the 24mm 1.4G I had in fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That's very interesting to know.

Laudrup said:
I've got the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 on a D800 and I'd still buy the Sigma 35. The Zeiss 25mm f/2 would be my Zeiss of choice if I was looking at that 24-35 type of focal length. The 28mm Nikon is nice enough with a decent price. A 24mm PC-E Nikon lens not worth considering?
Click to expand...

Aye. The Zeiss 25 and the Nikkor 28 seem to be the two I'm looking at most atm. I don't think I'd need the PC-E to be honest, it's a bit of a speciality and the main purpose of that lens is something I don't think I'd use (or need). That, and I don't think I'd want to fiddle around too much preparing for the shot but granted it becomes easier the more you use a TS.

GHP said:
Why not Sigma?
Its an incredible 35mm for the price. (That's if a 35 fits the bill of course.)
I was a brand snob until I started looking at Sigma, and given the price compared to Nikon it was a no brainer for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary. It's not brand snobbery, it's more past experience. I'm sure it's a decent enough lens, it's just not for me.
 
Digifrog said:
Thanks Gary. It's not brand snobbery, it's more past experience. I'm sure it's a decent enough lens, it's just not for me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that sounded like I was calling you a brand snob, which I wasn't.
I however was one until the Sigma 35.
 
I know you said `prime` & if for a specific purpose you probably won't better the suggestions posted, but wondered if you'd considered the 16-35? ok it's only F4, but has VR & covers the range you mentioned.
(just thought I'd ask)
 
Sigma 35mm f1.4 is easily the best lens I've ever used, stunning on a D600 and now my D800, however its not neccesarily that "wide"
I had the Nikon 28G f1.8 and it got returned, the IQ was good but its not as good as the Sigma, that said it is wider.

I use an oldish Nikon 24mm f2.8D on my D800 and find the quality fine, cheap and of course wide too.
 
I think I've almost completely swayed towards the yet to be released Nikon 35 f/1.8G ED N
 
A few months ago I was also looking for a mildly wide angle lens and read a lot of reviews. I wanted AF, but I would have bought MF if the optical quality (as described in the reviews) would have convinced me.

But all lenses, including the top notch brands like Nikon and Zeiss, seemed to have some optical flaw(s) which stopped me from buying them.

In the end I bought the Sigma. I don't believe reviews blindly, but they all were so favourable that I thought, all of them together cannot be that wrong.

I tested the lens for the focussing because I had read about focussing issues, and bang, in my focus tests using fence poles, walls, dominoes, and rows of threes it became apparent that there were focussing issues. I also bought the USB dock btw, so I did adjust the lens.

I don't want to go into utmost detail, I've described this elsewhere, but in the end, I returned the lens and ordered a second specimen. The second speciment had similar problems, but much less pronounced. They were only so faintly noticeable that although I didn't like seeing them, I decided to keep the lens and started using it in everyday use.

Despite those focussing issues I had noticed in my tests, the lens has meanwhile become my always-on. Much to my surprise, the issues are unnoticeable in everyday use. I have to say, for me, this specimen of this lens is a great 35mm lens. It has weaknesses like all the other top notch lenses I've read about, but the weaknesses don't bother me in everyday use. And the Sigma is a lot cheaper than the other, also not perfect lenses.

Apologies for telling the story, I know you've decided against buying a Sigma and I understand why. But the other lenses are not perfect either...
 
I have the 28mm Nikon and personally I find it to be a brilliant lens. I don't find 28mm especially wide, but it is perfect for what I use it for and the image quality is excellent (most of the recent digital ones in my Flickr have been taken on it). For a little more you could consider a 24mm Samyang Tilt Shift if using for architecture at smaller apertures and for wide but less wide I have read generally excellent things about the Sigma 35mm which is hopefully what I will buy next. Finally you could even look at an Ai-s lens such as the 28mm which may be the cheapest option.
 
Seems I overlooked the Nikon 20mm f2.8 D AF...

12872.jpg


...at £450 this could be a contender. My reservation is it's a D lens and not sure how it would marry to the D800.
 
Digifrog said:
Seems I overlooked the Nikon 20mm f2.8 D AF...


...at £450 this could be a contender. My reservation is it's a D lens and not sure how it would marry to the D800.
Click to expand...


I loved the Nikon 20mm on my D600 but sold it as I found it to be too wide for most things I do (24mm tend to be my favourite) - good lens though and can be had a lot cheaper than £450 used.
 
The 20mm D would be a great choice. Love mine, but do tend to grab the 16-35 at the mo. But the 20mm is so much lighter and smaller.
The D lenses don't always get the credit the deserve.
 
How about the Voigtlander 20/3.5, it's what I went for when I wanted wider than 24mm.

I've fallen in love with Voigtlander since buying my first lens, 58/1.4, and a super sexy lens it is.
 
macvisual said:
Loving my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 lens on the D800. I think any wider and it could be too much.
Click to expand...

The best wide on the market imo but since I already own the 16-35 f/4 (which is optically just as good at 21mm) and seeing that it's not small or particularly light I can't justify the cost for the Zeiss. If money was no object I'd probably opt for the Zeiss 15/2,8 actually but even then won't take my Lee system..

Thegreatroberto said:
The 20mm D would be a great choice. Love mine, but do tend to grab the 16-35 at the mo. But the 20mm is so much lighter and smaller.
The D lenses don't always get the credit the deserve.
Click to expand...

The only reason for me getting the 20mm D (or as Wail pointed out - the Voigtlander) is because it's a small carryable lens. The 16-35 is not particularly heavy but to go for a lighter smaller prime within that focal range might be an option, especially if I want to explore low light possibilities.

Since the 16-35 is optically not its best at 35mm, this was the reason (originally) for the want of a 35 prime for when I want to travel light.
 
Last edited:
I have both the 24/1.4 & 35/1.4 AF-S, and both are great lenses albeit large in comparison to the manual focus ones.

The 20/3.5 Voigt. is just a marvel of a small lens, great rendition, makes you think twice about shooting due to it being manual focus, and makes you that much more agile with the smaller package.

Each one has its merits, but for compactness and build-quality, the Voigt. is up there with the Zeiss (both are made by Cosina, if I'm not mistaken).
 
Robert White is the official importer of Voigtlander stuff into UK ...
 
Glad to be of help :)
 
Consumer Electronics Show (CES) starts on the 7th January, so probably about then you will hear something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top