Wide prime for Nikon

AndWhyNot

AndWhyNot

Messages
1,402
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Avoiding the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 for budgetary reasons what else can I consider as a wide prime for my D300 that will migrate with my to full frame when I make the jump.

Sigma 20mm f/1.8
Sigma 24mm f/1.8 (heard poor stories about this)
What else?

Needs to be faster than f/2.8 and wider than 30mm. Is there a Nikon lens I'm missing in the f/2 or f/1.8 range?
 
AndWhyNot said:
Avoiding the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 for budgetary reasons what else can I consider as a wide prime for my D300 that will migrate with my to full frame when I make the jump.

Sigma 20mm f/1.8
Sigma 24mm f/1.8 (heard poor stories about this)
What else?

Needs to be faster than f/2.8 and wider than 30mm. Is there a Nikon lens I'm missing in the f/2 or f/1.8 range?
Click to expand...

there is a nikon 14mm f2.8 but it ain't cheap and not sure it meets your needs
 
I have the Siggy 20mm f1.8 in Canon fit and love it. It's not ultra sharp at f1.8 but it soon gets there and is a great lens IMVHO.
 
I went for the Sigma 20mm in the end. Noticed a dealer had a used one that'd been in stock for a while so they knocked 10% off to make it the cheapest i've seen for a while. Not done much with it yet but a few test shots suggest:

> Wide angle and wide aperture is weird, and maybe a bit unnatural
> Once calibrated to the body (D300) it seems sharp at f/1.8, handheld on static objects
> Some CA wide open but only about the same level as my Nikkor 35mm f/2
> Slow and noisy to focus

First chance to use in anger tomorrow, won't be able to post the pics (childrens' privacy) but will report back if there's anything to add.
 
I have a 14mm f/2.8 and it's ace; very wide, amazing close focus (about 5cm from the front element - miles closer than any zoom) and is very well built. IQ is great, although wide-open and especially close-up, the DoF is paper thin. AF is fast. No filter ring and it is prone to creative flare, but it's such a good lens for impact editorial work I won't be getting rid. Swapped a £300 Tokina 12-24 for it.


Multiplier by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Think they replace it with the 15mm f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Swapped a £300 Tokina 12-24 for it.
Click to expand...

That's just showing off - I've seen them listed but for much more than that.

If I didn't need the extra stop of light I'd have been tempted by the extra width of the 14mm.

Well I used the 20mm last night and this morning. Last night I got a couple of great results shooting creatively whilst this morning it served me well in a room full of parents and toddlers. Nothing further to report than my previous post other than it seems sharp at f/1.8 assuming focus is latched on correctly. And with such a clear day today I've had chance to test it's flare handling... :D
 
specialman said:
I have a 14mm f/2.8 and it's ace; very wide, amazing close focus (about 5cm from the front element - miles closer than any zoom) and is very well built. IQ is great, although wide-open and especially close-up, the DoF is paper thin. AF is fast. No filter ring and it is prone to creative flare, but it's such a good lens for impact editorial work I won't be getting rid. Swapped a £300 Tokina 12-24 for it.


Multiplier by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Think they replace it with the 15mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting lens you have! I have avoided non nikon lenses since I upgraded everything over time to nikon's range. But I'm going to do some research on this lens now as I'm always looking out for a wide prime for dx that does a great job and frees me a little from the 17-55 2.8 general use but great lens that it is.
 
Yeah, it's an interesting alternative to the much more expensive Nikon option. Don't know what the stats are on the Nikon but I suspect it'll pretty much be the same in terms of focussing distance. Think the Nikon is AF-D so limited in AF on certain bodies.

TBH, the focussing distance is the key for me. Optically something like a 17-35 might be better (a possibly future buy) bur I like the Sigma as a 'go-to' lens
 
specialman said:
Yeah, it's an interesting alternative to the much more expensive Nikon option. Don't know what the stats are on the Nikon but I suspect it'll pretty much be the same in terms of focussing distance. Think the Nikon is AF-D so limited in AF on certain bodies.

TBH, the focussing distance is the key for me. Optically something like a 17-35 might be better (a possibly future buy) bur I like the Sigma as a 'go-to' lens
Click to expand...

You´ve really got me thinking about this, if I can find a cheap enough quality one then I might have a new toy, I mean tool!
 
Ha ha - have seen them for £350ish - think they were £500-£600 new and considering the Nikon version is £600 or so, it's a pretty good price. Think one of the other 3rd party manufacturers (Tokina? Tamron?) does a 14mm f/2.8 too but haven't dine any digging on that in terms of comparison.

Used mine again today for a potential cover shot and have just had one published that I'm mega proud of so it's paying for itself nicely :)


_DSC5978.jpg by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Ha ha - have seen them for £350ish - think they were £500-£600 new and considering the Nikon version is £600 or so, it's a pretty good price. Think one of the other 3rd party manufacturers (Tokina? Tamron?) does a 14mm f/2.8 too but haven't dine any digging on that in terms of comparison.

Used mine again today for a potential cover shot and have just had one published that I'm mega proud of so it's paying for itself nicely :)
Click to expand...

I'd love to try that lens out! If I was happy I'd love to get it at 350
 
I also used to have the Sigma 14mm, and enjoyed using it, especially the close focus distance (although I seem to recall the 24mm focussed impressively close also), and used it an awful lot before I replaced it with the 16-35 (I couldn't afford Nikons 14-24).

However, it's worth adding as a caution that the 14mm is soft at the edges at most apertures, suffers from lens flare in most light conditions, and if you're a pixel peeper, you'll notice quite a lot of chromatic aberration.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I also used to have the Sigma 14mm, and enjoyed using it, especially the close focus distance (although I seem to recall the 24mm focussed impressively close also), and used it an awful lot before I replaced it with the 16-35 (I couldn't afford Nikons 14-24).

However, it's worth adding as a caution that the 14mm is soft at the edges at most apertures, suffers from lens flare in most light conditions, and if you're a pixel peeper, you'll notice quite a lot of chromatic aberration.
Click to expand...

mmmmm.....14-24 - would do me just nicely :)

Yep, flare can be a problem although I'm getting quite used to shooting one-handed these days, using the other the block flare out of shot. Can't comment on the edge softness as I'm on DX, but I suspect it'll be the trade-off for price over the Nikon. CAs - not really had that many problems, although I'm not really a pixel-peeper. :)
 
Yes, worth noting that I'm shooting on a D700, so the field of view on the 14mm is really really wide.

CA is something you can live with if you're not submitting to the like of Alamy, who seem to go through images at 200% zoom and reject the entire batch if they see something they don't fancy on one image. Needless to say, I've not sent them much that I took with this lens............:thumbsdown:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top