1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Wide angle for FX?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by MD2595, Aug 2, 2009.

  1. MD2595


    Jul 6, 2007
    Fort Worth, TX
    Are there any wide angle lenses (10-20mm) that are for FX? All the ones I'm finding look to be for the DX (APS-C) sensor.

    Not looking to rush, but I'd like to add one to the collection and start doing some landscapes.

    I know I have a D300, but looking to upgrade to the D700 in under 6 months.

  2. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    Please note that a 10 mm on DX gives the same view as an 15 mm lens on FX, which is ultra-ultra wide.

    There are Nikkor 14-24/2.8 and Nikkor 17-35/2.8 lenses available, as well as an older Nikkor 14/2.8 prime.

    Then there is the Sigma 12-24 which is the widest rectilinear FX lens available.
  3. There is a pretty decent 20mm f/2.8 if the mass, size, price and inability to use filters on the 14-24 put you off.
  4. I have the 17-35 f2.8 and have been quite happy with it for WA
  5. Can't beat the image quality of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 AF-S if you don't use filters.

    If you are big on filters, consider the 17-35 AF-S
  6. A.O.M.E.


    Feb 1, 2009
    I think that the 17-35 is the perfect WA range on FX. The 14-24 is a stellar lens but the range isn't as useful and of course it's exposed to the elements because it can't take filters. OTOH, they're about the same price (still!) so it's worth considering both if you want to shell out $1500-1800.
  7. LSSE

    LSSE Guest

    here is a filtered 14-24.



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

    "usefulness" of the range is subjective to what you shoot and what other lenses are in your stock. The advantage of 25-35 on the 17-35 over the 14-24 is something to be considered carefully BUT, it is not something to lose sleep on. both lenses overlap in the wide end enough for both to be equally good for this type of photography. Filters as you can see are another area where it isn't as black and white differences as some may paint it. The people who I've seen really invested into filters do not even use screw on filters and go for the adjustable square ones which fit the 14-24 anyways. It's all a question of what matters to you.

    Either lens is ok. However if you own something to cover beyond 24 mm already there is not much point in getting the 17-35. Go ultra wide either with the 12-24 sigma or the 14-24 nikkor. On the other hand if you lack something 24-35 and you're really bothered by this then the 17-35 will do fine. The choice is highly subject to your own taste and goals so don't really jump on a lens based on what other say "it is useful". You should get what works for YOU.
  8. Hm, I think that is open to debate as 24mm-ish is kind of the crossover for a lot of people (myself included). I mean you'd be changing lens a lot if you shoot the 14-24 and the 24-70 if you hover around the 24mm range a lot. 17-35 may be a good solution. Granted this also varies with shooting style, shooting environment, the subjects in question, personal preferences, etc....
  9. LSSE

    LSSE Guest

    I was editing in the middle but anyways,

    24-35 may be important to some I agree. But nothing to die for even less if you are into UWA photography. The overlap they have in the wide end will ensure pretty much ensure great results w/o any lens swapping. So the final choice is more of a decision involving style. I simply see no need to swap lenses with either model any more than the other.

    my advise is simple: forget wasting time over the hypothetical scenarios where the outter overlap region of 14-16 and 24-35 are what you'll need to get the shot because it will never be the case. 99% of the time both lenses will get the shot just as good.
  10. I elected to get a 12-24mm sigma. I love it - i get UWA on my d3 and super wise on my d300. It is a slow lens so if you need something fast and wide say for indoors then it may not be the one for you.
  11. LSSE

    LSSE Guest

    I've seen wide shots of it and looks fantastic. The quality looks pretty good too.
  12. MD2595


    Jul 6, 2007
    Fort Worth, TX
    I sold my 17-55mm when I knew I was going to be going FX and bought the 24-70mm. I'm looking to replace the small end now.
  13. MD2595


    Jul 6, 2007
    Fort Worth, TX
    Looks like it's this one:


  14. I just got the 20mm f/2.8D and use it on my D700. A great lens and nice and compact.
  15. Got the 20/2.8 too, on my D80 it's nothing special, but on my F80, it's amazing.

    I can't think of something wider that would still be useful. I mean, I have to be careful not to have my feet or my shadow in the frame at 20mm, so with that Sigma at 12mm, it must be incredible.
  16. dspeed


    Dec 17, 2006
    Carlsbad, NM
    I went with the 14-24 and am very pleased.


  17. bharada


    May 25, 2006
    SF Bay Area, CA
    I have the Nikon 17-35 as well as a Tamron 14mm f/2.8.

    The Tamron is like the Nikon 14-24 with a bulbous front element which does not allow for screw-on filters. It also flares like crazy so sun position is critical when using it.
  18. 14-24 is in a class by itself.....I wouldn't even mention another lens in the same post!

    The 14-24 is king of all UWA, (don't take my word for it, do a search) I wish I could of borrowed it longer but had to make a choice of buying that or the 24-70 and my needs warrant the 24-70. But I plan on buying one down the line eventually....
  19. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    I'll toss in a vote for the Nikkor AF 14mm f/2.8D prime. I love mine!


    These things are still sold new for the same price as a 14-24, but because everybody thinks the 14-24 is the king they've all ditched these and you can find them on eBay for $1000. I got mine for even less than that. No it doesn't have the optical purity of the 14-24, but at half the size and weight it's small enough that I can literally toss it into a small non-photography oriented waist pack, or an oversized pants pocket! Try that with a 14-24. No doubt that's a great lens, but way too big for me to want to carry it around most of the time. I've gotten tons of great photos with my 14/2.8. I'm glad so many people think this is a bad lens, because otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it so cheap! :tongue:

    F100 & Velvia 50, f/2.8

    F100 & Fuji Superia Reala 100, probably f/4

    If you're still on DX for now, I've found 14mm to still be usefully wide on DX as well to the point that I haven't bothered to get a DX specific ultra-wide lens.

    D200, f/4.5

    No ultra-wide lens that I've found focuses closer and wider than this thing, even the 14-24. This makes for some very unique and interesting shots. This thing just keeps on spitting out winner after winner for me. I've even gotten some work published with it without even really trying. The people who wanted it were like, omg how did you get that shot? :cool:  So wouldn't trade it for anything. I actually like it so much that I sold my Tokina 11-16 a month or so later! :eek: 
  20. I have a 20-35mm AF-D that seems to do well.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.