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 Primes for DX?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Phillip Ino, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Is the Sigma 14mm 2.8 any good? How about the Tokina 17mm 3.5? I am considering the prime option versus keeping my zoom. If you have any images to share, that would be great! Thanks :smile:
     
  2. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    the 15 2.8 is awesome...diag fish ..check it out..;-)
     
  3. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Oh yeah? What's special about that one? :smile:
     
  4. pforsell

    pforsell

    Jan 15, 2008
    15... hmm that must be the Sigma? Do you shoot with it and/or have samples? Can you comment the Nikkor 16/2.8?

    I have listed my both DX lenses for sale (Tokina) and will replace them with a FX fisheye. I was considering the 16/2.8 as the easy/obvious choice but I see now that there is a Sigma too.

    Back to the topic: None of the 14/2.8 primes have impressed me on DX. All of them have obscene amounts of both lateral (post-processing fixable) and longitunal CA (unfixable). The Nikkor was designed for the 2 Mpixel D1. What is interesting though is that whether any of these 14 mm (Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron) works with the 12 Mpix FX sensor.
     
  5. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Yep, it's a Sigma. And I can't seem to find out much info online about how the 14/2.8 performs on DX.
     
  6. what about the Nikkor 10.5?
     
  7. pforsell

    pforsell

    Jan 15, 2008
    It is a top notch diagonal fisheye. Propably the best DX lens by Nikon ever.

    You just have to like the fisheye distortion since the software solutions (Capture NX, Fisheye-Hemi) used to "straighten" the distortion while doing a good job cannot do miracles. You will lose some image data due to cropping and inevitably lose some details and resolution in the process too. I wouldn't recommend a fish to replace a wide angle, only to supplement it, and always unstraightened.
     
  8. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Not really interested in a fish. Too much distortion.
     
  9. ora-et-labora

    ora-et-labora

    304
    Mar 15, 2008
    Earth
    Had one, but sold it quick, because it's inferior to the Tokina 12-24/4. On DX, there isn't a real alternative to the zooms IMHO. Maybe the upcoming Zeiss 18/3.5 is better, but it's rather expensive.
     
  10. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Oooh thanks for that great info! Yeah, the Zeiss is most likely going to be out of my budget.
     
  11. Steinar

    Steinar

    Aug 16, 2007
    Denmark
    I agree if we are talking about NX, but you only loose about 2% resolution using the hemi-software, as I recommend very high.

    I love NX and use it all the time, even I have the CS3 extended, but for altering a fisheye-photo the Hemi-software is much better than NX.

    The Hemi is made for people shooting but I have fine results with scapes about 8 out of 10 times.

    With the Hemi-software it is close, that the 10,5 can give you all you want for the wide.

    I only have a WA-lens so I can use a filter. Otherwise it would be enough for me with the 10,5.
     
  12. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    performs more like a wide angle, fantastic color, contrast, very sharp all that:biggrin:...btw, fish makes me dizzy..lol
    :cool: 
     
  13. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    personally don't have any samples but have seen several ...it rocks and is FX ....:biggrin:
     
  14. Steinar

    Steinar

    Aug 16, 2007
    Denmark
    fish makes me dizzy..lol

    :biggrin:
     
  15. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 can be considered a prime lens...

    Even straightened it's still not rectilinear though... it just gives the perception of being rectilinear. If you compare to a rectilinear lens, it would look different.
     
  16. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Hmm, very convincing, Mark! Are you talking about the new DG version or does it not matter to you? And yes, fish = dizzy :Swirl:
     
  17. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Yeah but that's just one more step in the workflow that I'd rather not add....thanks, though! :smile:
     
  18. panda81

    panda81

    Feb 7, 2008
    Texas
    Just curious, is there a reason why you're exclusively looking at primes?
     
  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.