Going Nikon Full Frame - 10-20 replacement

rhubarb · 27 Jun 2011

Morning all, finally decided to move up to full frame after nearly 3 1/2 years of use of my D300. I pretty much use my Sigma 10-20 all the time on it, so the question is what's the best alternative full frame.

I need to be able to mount filters on it, so I think that rules out the 14-24. Does that mean my only choice is a 16-35 F4, or are there other alternatives. Happily go wide prime but can't really see anything wide that will take filters.

Anyone done a similar upgrade (D300/10-20 -> D700/16-35) any thoughts?

I generally shoot architecture and landscape/seascape stuff, will probably be getting a PC-E at some point too - but thats a little way down the line

Thanks

awp · 27 Jun 2011

There is a way to put filters on the 14-24 - I think Lee make a special filter holder for it. Great lens.

david357 · 27 Jun 2011

Lee make a holder - read this:

http://www.simonleechphotography.co...troduce-filter-holder-for-nikon-14-24mm-lens/

hth

Willo · 27 Jun 2011

There is the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, but this has the same problem as the Nikon 14-24mm whereby you can't mount filters.

Tokina have also just announced the 17-35mm f4 which will accept filters. No price or release date yet.

desantnik · 27 Jun 2011

Nikon 17-35. Peach of a lens!

StewartR · 27 Jun 2011

desantnik said:
Nikon 17-35. Peach of a lens!

I'd second that. It's one of the undiscovered/unknown gems in Nikon's line-up. Quite hard to get hold of though, and therefore correspondingly expensive if you don't shop around carefully.

Woodsy · 27 Jun 2011

Agreed with above really. The 14-24 is a mind blowingly good lens, but as pointed out, the lee holder for it is £LOL.

The 17-35 is indeed an outstanding lens, and though it doesn't have VR (which I personally consider useless for that range anyway), it is an F/2.8 lens.

The 16-35 is considered by some to be sharper than the 17-35, however is an F/4 lens.

If it were me, I'd probably get the 16-35mm, as for landscapes, aperture is unimportant, Nikons Nanocoat is well worth having, and I consider sharpness to be a key consideration. Not that the 17-35 is soft, not by any means!

jpw · 27 Jun 2011

StewartR said:
I'd second that. It's one of the undiscovered/unknown gems in Nikon's line-up. Quite hard to get hold of though, and therefore correspondingly expensive if you don't shop around carefully.

I wouldn't say it was undiscovered/unknown at all, it's lauded as one of Nikon's best WA zooms. MPB have a couple of them in around £700-800.

I had (and recently sold) the 20-35 2.8, which was the precursor to the 17-35, no 1st-gen AF motor to fail and excellent IQ for a few hundred less than a used 17-35. Only sold it as I had two wide angle FF zooms and rarely use filters (kept the Sigma 12-24).

For the bargain FF wide zoom, consider the 18-35mm. Under £200, takes 77mm filters, very light and surprisingly good IQ especially stopped down a couple of stops.