Recommendations for going Wide

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR' started by stringbean98, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. stringbean98

    stringbean98

    24
    Jul 8, 2008
    NYC
    Hi all,

    Aside from the much revered Nikon 14-24mm, are there any other wides that you guys can recommend? I want to wet my feet first- see if I would actually use a wide lens often, before i commit $1,600. What do you guys use?

    Anthony
     
  2. vinman

    vinman

    Nov 15, 2006
    Upstate SC
    There aren't any 3rd party ultra-wide zooms for FX that I'm aware of. Your three options are to 1) buy a DX lens and play with it, then resell; 2) buy the Nikkor 14mm, which isn't cheap; or 3) buy the 14-24 and hold on tight!

    I bought the 14-24 with my 700, and that's the lens I keep mounted in my bag. It's probably used for at least 25% of my images in FX. I was a hard core tele shooter prior (80-200AF-S and 500f4).

    If there's any way you can swing it, this is the lens. Worst case scenario is that you don't love it and you sell it at a nominal loss (they are holding their value). If you buy it, I'm betting you keep it!
     
  3. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    The Sigma 12-24 is an ultra wide designed for full frame, and it's supposed to have some good distortion control, from what I've read. If you really want to save some money, try and locate a used Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4. One of the better bargains I have come across. They can be had for around $200-$250. They're sharp and they're light, making it a pretty attractive option. It's no 14-24, but the difference in IQ is minimal in comparison to the difference in price.
     
  4. gilbert

    gilbert

    262
    May 6, 2005
    So. CA
    Another option is the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 lens. Unlike the 14-24, the 17-35 does take filters which is a big plus in my book as I often use polarizers and ND filters. If you don't need to use filters, the 14-24 is the one to get IMHO.
     
  5. fscherz

    fscherz

    130
    Jul 28, 2007
    Austria
    Check Sigma 15-30 which I'm looking at as well.
     
  6. orfeas

    orfeas

    48
    Jul 8, 2008
    greece
    I have been using a Nikkor 20mm
    some years ago.
    I can recall very low distortion and very very useful focal length
    (those days there was no 14-24)
     
  7. I migrated from the 14/2.8 to the 14-24/2.8 and have never looked back. Comparable IQ (at least from my perspective) - Broader range - Seems to be less susceptible to distortion.

    I agree with Francis. Either go with a more modest priced lens and still get decent results (i.e. Tamron or Sigma) or bite the bullet and put some really superb glass in your bag.

    Pleasant problems. Best of luck!
     
  8. I owned the Sigma 12-24 (in a Canon mount) and can say it's a fantastic lens. I used it on a FF camera. It's rectilinear so the distortion is minimal. It has a rear filter but I managed to use cokin filters on the front (handheld) as long as I was at ~17mm and up. 12mm is v-e-r-y w-i-d-e on full frame! :)
     
  9. stringbean98

    stringbean98

    24
    Jul 8, 2008
    NYC
    Wow, such excellent advice. Thanks!

    The Sigma 12-24mm looks like a good starting point... I owned the Sigma 10-20mm for DX so i know what to expect in terms of build quality. I Did like the lens a lot. Too bad this isn't 2.8 though.

    The Tamron 17-35mm seems like a good alternative as well- 2.8 at its widest. Though I wonder if 17 will be dramatic enough of a difference from 24mm.

    choices choices....