Nikon FX Ultra Wide Lens?

sophos9

sophos9

Suspended / Banned
Messages
884
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
But which one to go for???

1. 14mm f2.8
2. 14-24mm f2.8
3. 16-35mm f4 VRII
4. 17-35 f2.8

Each has their own distinct disadvantages/advantages. I'm after best sharpness and easily correctable distortion

Any ideas?

Thanks
 
I'd opt for the 14 - 24mm. Wide without being a fisheye so straight lines will not look bent.
Very sharp lens.
Versatile range.
Bear in mind that on your D300 the focal length will be multiplied by 1.5 (35mm equivalent) but that still gives you 21 - 36mm.

Try it out in the shop to be sure you are happy with the coverage.
 
Hi - just updated my profile, its for a D700 (I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for the crop)

Def a nice lens although if I throw using lens mount Cokin ND for landscape into the equation, the 14-24 will not house them...

What are your thoughts on the 16-35 f4 VRII?
 
sophos9 said:
Hi - just updated my profile, its for a D700 (I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for the crop)

Def a nice lens although if I throw using lens mount Cokin ND for landscape into the equation, the 14-24 will not house them...

What are your thoughts on the 16-35 f4 VRII?
Click to expand...

Another excellent lens and since you have a full frame camera then it will be plenty wide.:thumbs:
 
You said you wanted the sharpest. 17-35 is great but unfortunately the least sharpest of the bunch.

Since you want filters, 16-35 is next. Very sharp lens if you only need F4. Distortion comes with all UWA's and is all are correctable. It just depeneds on what you are shooting as to how distorted things will look.

I know nothing about the 14 2.8 and filters but it is sharp and more than anything, it is more portable.

Otherwise it is the 17-35 2.8 for the simple fact it takes filters. It does 2.8 too which I like. There is a used one for sale on this forum and I'd jump on it if I was you.
 
Last edited:
The 14-24 is the one of the Nikon Holy Trinity - glass doesn't get any better than that.

However, you have to bear in mind that its errm 14-24mm, which could in practical terms not be as good as the 17-35, unless of course you want 14-16mm desperately :D

The 14-24 doesn't take filters though, which might be limiting for landscape type use other than that its a piece of glass that can't be bettered on FX.
 
Thanks for the information - I had to make a decision and I've just bought a Nikon 14mm f/2.8 AF D ED

Looking forward to shooting it :)
 
Last edited:
Surprising choice, did you get a tasty deal on it or something? Don't get me wrong, probably much nicer than my Siggy 14/2.8, but the Nikkor 14/2.8 seems to change hands (or at least is usually listed for) way too close to the superior 14-24 price.
 
Good challenge :)

I got a very good deal. Another thing I needed to consider was size - I could have spent forever comparing them on paper but thought it best to buy one and play with it, if I'm happy then great, if I'm not I'll need to sell and buy something else

So far, I'm happy :)
 
Size would've been a factor for me too...the Nikon 14/2.8 does look fairly squat (I think my Siggy facsimilie is perhaps a few mm longer).
 
its a good size, the other thing that worried me about the 14-24 was that the lens exceeds the petal array - I shoot a lot of confined spaces, would be such a shame, well you know :'(

Will be doing a review on the 14mm under differing conditions so will be interesting to see the results - I'll post the link here when I'm finished
 
Last edited:
Looking forward to reading your fnidings. I've been given the load of the 14-24 and 16-35 when I'm in Hawaii next month so I can compare them side by side, as I've been wondering what wide angle to go with for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top