Finest Wide Angle Nikkor

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by arthury, May 2, 2007.

  1. In your experience, what would you consider to be the finest wide angle Nikkor for landscape photography that you have ever used?

    Finest seems like it's subjective and yes, that's fine. I am seeking your personal opinion with respect to your experience from using that lens.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2007
  2. lovep1

    lovep1 Guest

    Nikon 17-35 f2.8
     
  3. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    Nikon 12-24 f4.0
     
  4. On film I love the 18-35 ED and 24mm/2.8. I don't have a wide for digital yet.
     
  5. The last I'd part with.....my 12-24.....just a sublime range.
    My most fun...the 10.5....get it to make yourself smile.

    The one I should own but don't...17-35.

    The one i want for no rational reason....16mm.

    The one that I'd probable improve my shooting with if I got it....uh...20.2.8

    Life is good. Buy what you want...not what you need.


    My only "normal" lens....the 10.5.....it's the only Nikkor that approximates the human eye's field of view::::
    59591636.
    59952570.
    48240350.
     
  6. For wide angle: Nikon 12-24 f4.0
     
  7. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The 14mm f/2.8 is a well regarded lens for film, but if you want wider on DX you have to go 12-24mm.
     
  8. Sample images from14mm/2.8AFD

    If some of you can post some sample images from the 14mm/2.8, that will be great.

    Is the 14mm/2.8 more corrected than the 12-24/4DX ?
     
  9. RexRoy

    RexRoy

    190
    Jan 4, 2006
    New York
    for landscape, i'm still partial to the 17-35/2.8 although i have used the 12-24/4 as well.
     
  10. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The 17-35 is only good on a full frame camera, on a DX crop it's not wide angle anymore.
     
  11. Yes it is, except at the long end where it's a normal.

    It's not super-wide, but it's definitely wide.
     
  12. Getson

    Getson

    144
    Oct 10, 2006
    Halifax, NS
    My vote is for the 17-55. A friend of mine has it and it's an insane lens. Superb quality.
     
  13. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    I wouldn't really call 26mm wide angle, and I'm pretty sure the OP doesn't either.
     
  14. Jeff Lee

    Jeff Lee

    May 16, 2006
    Oregon
    For film, I loved my 24 2.8. But the 12-24 is really a nice piece of glass. Some folks have had problems with it. But the work you seen done with, made me go for it. Especially its sharpness and flare resistance. Out of all my lenses, definately the most creative tool.

    The range makes a nice shoot from the hip street lens....also at 12 for inside work you can shoot quit slow.

    For me the best Nikkor WA is the one I have:) and thats the 12-24 for now.
     
  15. 17-55, and 12-24.
     
  16. I have tried a whole bunch of them, being aon th same mission as you..

    I say that either the 12-24 or the 17-55 or the 17-35.
    * The 17-55 flares quite easiliy against the sun the 17-35 does not.
    * The 17-55 does great at F2.8 peakes at F7.1 and looses a little bit up to F11.
    * The 12-24 is great at F8- F11
    * I tried the 14mm F2.8 and was not at all impressed
    * I have tried the 16mm Fish eye and the 10.5 fun lenses but they are fisheyes.
    * 18mm Not that impressed
    * 20mm F2.8 pretty good but not better then the 17-55

    You want versatility? 17-55 hands down
     
  17. Doug

    Doug

    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    Respectfully, wrong. 17-35 rocks on digital. EXCELLENT 4 star performer. As wide as 12-24? Of course, not. But 90% of my ladscapes the 17-35 is plenty wide. appoligies for watermark, I only mark my very best few photos this way.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. RexRoy

    RexRoy

    190
    Jan 4, 2006
    New York
    With all due respect, the OP had asked, "In your experience, what would you consider to be the finest wide angle Nikkor for landscape photography that you have ever used?" There was no reference to full-frame nor to DX. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

    Irregardless, full-frame or DX is a moot point.

    The 12-24/4DX at 12mm (for landscape) suffers from light fall-off (corners, but not that annoying), CA and image is less sharp unless stopped down to f/8 or smaller. Barrel distortion, however, is surprisingly less than that of the 17-35/2.8 at 17mm.

    The 17-35/2.8 is very resistant to flare and ghosting compared to 17-55/2.8DX - which is important when doing landscape especially on a strong backlit scenes. Optically, you'd be hard pressed to notice differences between the two. The 17-35/2.8, however, can be mounted on both full-frame AND DX bodies! :smile: :wink: :rolleyes:
     
Loading...