Best smaller FX WA
- Thread starter mysh
- Start date
While the Sigma 12-24 is smaller than the Nikon 14-24, I'd hesitate to call it small. There's a whole crop of FX UWA that are a bit smaller than the Sigma (like the Nikon 18-35, Sigma/Tamron 17-35's, and Tokina 20-35). And there are primes that a significantly smaller, like the Tokina 17, Nikon 20, and the tiny Voightlander 20.
None are as good as the Nikon 14-24, so you just have to pick your poison, and know your priorities. I've used the Sigma 12-24, Tamron 17-35, Tokina 20-35, and currently own the Nikon 14-24 and Tokina 17.
The 17 is a very nicely sized lens that is small enough to take without being a burden, places where the massize Nikkor would be (and provide a filterable option if needbe). The Sigma is the sharpest corner-to-corner (other than the Nikon) with the least distortion, but is slow aperture and unfilterable. The Tamron is light, but feels cheap and flimsy, requires stopping down to f/8 at least for sharp corners. The Tokina 20-35 is much sturdier feeling (but heavier), constant f/2.8, and sharpens up faster than the Tamron.
None are as good as the Nikon 14-24, so you just have to pick your poison, and know your priorities. I've used the Sigma 12-24, Tamron 17-35, Tokina 20-35, and currently own the Nikon 14-24 and Tokina 17.
The 17 is a very nicely sized lens that is small enough to take without being a burden, places where the massize Nikkor would be (and provide a filterable option if needbe). The Sigma is the sharpest corner-to-corner (other than the Nikon) with the least distortion, but is slow aperture and unfilterable. The Tamron is light, but feels cheap and flimsy, requires stopping down to f/8 at least for sharp corners. The Tokina 20-35 is much sturdier feeling (but heavier), constant f/2.8, and sharpens up faster than the Tamron.
thanks maybe should have specified I currently have the 10-20 sigma and would want something at least equal to this on the wide end.
I have only seen the sigma 12-24 and nikon 14-24 once in person. My memory might not be right but the nikon was a big pro lens. The sigma was bigger and heavier then my 10-20 but it wasn't a huge difference like I remember the 14-24 to be
I currently have the nikon 20mm 2.8 ais but would want wider
I have only seen the sigma 12-24 and nikon 14-24 once in person. My memory might not be right but the nikon was a big pro lens. The sigma was bigger and heavier then my 10-20 but it wasn't a huge difference like I remember the 14-24 to be
I currently have the nikon 20mm 2.8 ais but would want wider
My Sigma 14mm ƒ2.8 is pretty small, about the size of the 50mm ƒ1.4.
I had the Tokina 11-16 ƒ2.8, an outstanding lens, but it's not as small as a 50, and made for DX.
I sold both the 17-35/2.8 and 16-35/4. I kept the ZF.2 21/2.8. It is smaller than both of my prior WA lenses and it takes filters.
The Nikon 17-35 is actually pretty small, even shorter than the 16-35 and 14-24.
unfortunatly for you, fast ultra-wide zooms are chunky pieces of glass.
if it's a physically small lens you're after, a 20mm f2.8D comes to mind. the 24/2.8D is even smaller.
it all depends on how wide you want to go. a 17-35/2.8 is also very chunky, especially when compared to the primes.
How does the Nikon 16-35VR compare in size to the Nikon 14-24?
According to the link, the 16-35 is shorter than the 14-24. Anybody have a picture with the lenses size-by-side?
I am sure that the 16-35 is longer than the 14-24 - sorry cant compare, since i sold the 16-35.
However, the 14-24 is heavier and takes up more "bag space" because of the big front.
There is the Samyang 14/2.8 that is manual focus, but affordable.
I have the Nikon AFD18/2.8. Centre is sharp, but corners are soft. Susceptible to flare. I like it because it is small enough to carry all the time. I had a 18-35 nikkor, and it was just as light but bulkier and larger. I never carried it with me, and thus never used it. I would love the 14-24 or 16-35/4, but would only use it on dedicated trips. The Tokina 17/3.5 probably has similar performance as the 18/2.8 but alittle heavier and bigger. If you were willing to compromise field of view of 18mm, and corner/flare performance the 18//2.8 might fit your needs.
I almost went for a Nikon aFD14/2.8, but I don't use 14mm as much as I would 18mm. Plus it is 2/3 the size and weight of the 14-24/2.8. I find the choices get harder for me in the FX lens selection, because I am getting sensitive to the weight and size of stuff. I just cant keep up to friends and family if I have too much gear with me!
I have the Nikon AFD18/2.8. Centre is sharp, but corners are soft. Susceptible to flare. I like it because it is small enough to carry all the time. I had a 18-35 nikkor, and it was just as light but bulkier and larger. I never carried it with me, and thus never used it. I would love the 14-24 or 16-35/4, but would only use it on dedicated trips. The Tokina 17/3.5 probably has similar performance as the 18/2.8 but alittle heavier and bigger. If you were willing to compromise field of view of 18mm, and corner/flare performance the 18//2.8 might fit your needs.
I almost went for a Nikon aFD14/2.8, but I don't use 14mm as much as I would 18mm. Plus it is 2/3 the size and weight of the 14-24/2.8. I find the choices get harder for me in the FX lens selection, because I am getting sensitive to the weight and size of stuff. I just cant keep up to friends and family if I have too much gear with me!
Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-4.5 D is probably the smallest and lightest.
It is smaller in the hand than most DX zooms.
I just purchased one LNIB on FM for $325.
It is smaller in the hand than most DX zooms.
I just purchased one LNIB on FM for $325.
I use the Tokina 11-16 @ 16mm on a fx
Lightweight and great.
Lightweight and great.
Small, light and cheap, Tamron 17-35.
Hard to find and not for peepers as it is soft in the corners till stopped way down.
Hard to find and not for peepers as it is soft in the corners till stopped way down.
I recall the 16-35 feeling about the same size as the 24-70, albeit much lighter, and with a smaller hood. Unless size is absolutely critical, I think it's the way I'd go, due to the weight.
15mm. The conversion is simply 1.5x, so, for example, a 50mm on DX is a 75, and conversely, and to get the FX equivalent of a 50mm on DX, you'd need a 33mm. (Which is why the 35mm is so popular on DX.) The crop factor isn't a true 1.5, and it differs from sensor to sensor, but it's so close that the difference in effective focal length is only going to be a mm or two.
Trying to match the 10mm of the 10-24 on FX, the 14-24 will be slightly wider, and the 16-35 will be slightly less wide, but probably so close that you'd never know the difference. Try zooming your 10-24 to 11mm and you can see how small the difference is.
Trying to match the 10mm of the 10-24 on FX, the 14-24 will be slightly wider, and the 16-35 will be slightly less wide, but probably so close that you'd never know the difference. Try zooming your 10-24 to 11mm and you can see how small the difference is.
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/