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.
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::::
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 ?
Yes it is, except at the long end where it's a normal. It's not super-wide, but it's definitely wide.
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.
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
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.
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:
