Finest Wide Angle Nikkor

14mm f2.8

 

Nikon 17-35 f2.8

 

Nikon 12-24 f4.0

 

On film I love the 18-35 ED and 24mm/2.8. I don't have a wide for digital yet.

 

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::::

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

For wide angle: Nikon 12-24 f4.0

 

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.

 

for landscape, i'm still partial to the 17-35/2.8 although i have used the 12-24/4 as well.

 

The 17-35 is only good on a full frame camera, on a DX crop it's not wide angle anymore.

 

Yes it is, except at the long end where it's a normal.

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

 

My vote is for the 17-55. A friend of mine has it and it's an insane lens. Superb quality.

 

I wouldn't really call 26mm wide angle, and I'm pretty sure the OP doesn't either.

 

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.

 

17-55, and 12-24.

 

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: