Ultra wide angle lens for full frame.

Jack Flash

Jack Flash

Suspended / Banned
Messages
680
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
Yes
I really like the photos I get using my Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 with the NikonD300.
Since buying the D3 I have been toying with splashing out on the Nikkor 14-24mm 2.8 to give me shots as wide as I achieve with the Sigma and D300 combination. This is a very expensive option,so can anyone reccomend another full frame lens as wide as the Nikkor at a lower price?
 
The sigma 12-24 goes even wider. It's slower and not as sharp, but the 2mm counts for quite a bit at the wide end. I've seen some fantastic images from the 12-24, but they are a bit variable (sigma's questionable QC).
 
The image quality from the Nikon 14-24 is in a league of its own. The Sigma may go a bit wider but the sharpness and CA are so bad at the edge that you will probably crop those bits off your images anyway. To put it in perspective on a full frame camera the image quality of the Sigma at its best (f/8 and 12mm) is not as good as the Nikon at its worst setting (f2.8 and 24mm).

Yes the Nikon is expensive but its one of the few bits of kit that I have brought that is genuinely worth the money and I don't think there is anything else with the exception of the Sigma that will give you a 114 degree field of view.
 
14-24mm doesn't have a filter thread which I personally regard as a major let down. How about 17-35mm f/2.8 or 16-35mm f/4 that would be exactly as wide as your old lens?
 
I've got the Tamron 17-35, it's small, light, and really quite good for a very low price. There's a bit of vignetting at 17mm, but it' easy to correct :) .
 
Sigma 12-24 is £330ish second hand. My 12-24 is "as sharp" as my Canon 24-105L over most of the frame at 12mm. I'm sure the Nikon 14-24 is a lot sharper, but it's a lot more expensive. You really ought to try one first as they do produce a very weird image...
 
daugirdas said:
14-24mm doesn't have a filter thread which I personally regard as a major let down. How about 17-35mm f/2.8 or 16-35mm f/4 that would be exactly as wide as your old lens?
Click to expand...

Not sure but I think you can get a filter for this lens to protect the lens from damage. I was looking to buy one myself and found the filter on an American website somewhere. Will try and find it and post up a link. I believe it's quite an expensive bit of kit, and that it comes with a tool to remove the built in hood on the 14-24, but hey, for this lens, I'd be prepared to pay for it. It's an amazing lens and one I will add to my lens collection!
 
If you're looking for a zoom wide lens then the 14-24 is , as said before, in a league of its' own.

But my choice would be the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8; or the 16-35 AF-S f/4. I am sure Tamron & Tokina do something in that range too, but I am not sure about them.

If you're happy with prime lens, I love the Voigtlander 20 f/3.5
 
Thanks for all your suggestions. I am very pleased with my 10-20 Sigma on the D300 so the12-24 Sigma is tempting. I would imagine it would be half the price of the Nikon 14-24. Also the Nikon 16-35 sounds like a good option.
But the overall view seems to be if you can afford it there is only one choice.
At the moment it is a good price,£1,248 at Jessops and they do interest free credit,so it wouldn,t be quite so painful. I will let you know my decision.
 
imho the 20mm f2.8 nikkor is one of the best light as well so i am more likely to take it with me.
is any wider needed?
 
The Sigma 10-20 appears to have better image quality than Sigma 12-24.

Your experience with the 10-20 may not be a good benchmark for the 12-24.
 
Wail said:
If you're looking for a zoom wide lens then the 14-24 is , as said before, in a league of its' own.

But my choice would be the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8; or the 16-35 AF-S f/4. I am sure Tamron & Tokina do something in that range too, but I am not sure about them.

If you're happy with prime lens, I love the Voigtlander 20 f/3.5
Click to expand...

It seems that the 17-35 2.8 is for use with crop sensor cameras which surprised me seeing that it costs nearly nine hundred pounds. The other one you mention the 16-35 f4 VR is looking like a good choice.It will take a 77mm filter,which I already own and the VR would be useful for indoor shots in poor light. Also the the price of the lens would save me four hundred pounds against the Nikon 14-24mm. It is a one of the new lenses so I havn,t seen any independent reviews on it.
 
Jack Flash said:
It seems that the 17-35 2.8 is for use with crop sensor cameras which surprised me seeing that it costs nearly nine hundred pounds...
Click to expand...

Dunno where you got that: you must be thinking of the 17-55mm f/2.8DX lens, not the 17-35mm...
The Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 was introduced back in the late 1990's before digital SLR cameras were in common use.
It was designed for the Nikon F5 film camera and fell into partial disuse during the reign of the crop-sensor DSLR.
Now with the resurgence of FX DSLR bodies, it's come back into it's own.
Thankfully, I never sold mine and even sold my 14-24 f/2.8 and kept this one as I find it more useful than the newer lens.

It might be a wee bit soft at the edges at f/2.8, but who ever looks there apart from Internet pundits anyway? Real photographers have no qualms about using this lens...
 
Arkady2 said:
Dunno where you got that: you must be thinking of the 17-55mm f/2.8DX lens, not the 17-35mm...
The Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 was introduced back in the late 1990's before digital SLR cameras were in common use.
It was designed for the Nikon F5 film camera and fell into partial disuse during the reign of the crop-sensor DSLR.
Now with the resurgence of FX DSLR bodies, it's come back into it's own.
Thankfully, I never sold mine and even sold my 14-24 f/2.8 and kept this one as I find it more useful than the newer lens.

It might be a wee bit soft at the edges at f/2.8, but who ever looks there apart from Internet pundits anyway? Real photographers have no qualms about using this lens...
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob for pointing out my error. It was the 17-55 2.8 I looked at,but at a price of around £1,800 I won,t be considering the 17-35 2.8.
 
ah5168 said:
The Sigma 10-20 appears to have better image quality than Sigma 12-24.

Your experience with the 10-20 may not be a good benchmark for the 12-24.
Click to expand...

But the 10-20 is only for crop sensors...so would that not mean the only Sigma option for full frame would have to be a 12-24?
 
Can the 14-24 be used on a non full frame camera body?
 
Yogi said:
Can the 14-24 be used on a non full frame camera body?
Click to expand...

All full frame lenses can be used on a crop sensor camera. And with Nikon you can use Dx lenses on full frame cameras but you will lose out on quality and the coverage that the lens will give. I am sure someone on here can give you a better explaination than I can.
It is different with Cannon cameras though. Using a crop lens on a full frame camera can cause damage to the rear lens element.
 
Wail said:
If you're looking for a zoom wide lens then the 14-24 is , as said before, in a league of its' own.

But my choice would be the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8; or the 16-35 AF-S f/4. I am sure Tamron & Tokina do something in that range too, but I am not sure about them.

If you're happy with prime lens, I love the Voigtlander 20 f/3.5
Click to expand...

Thanks for the 16-35f4 suggestion,it was one that I had missed. I have now ordered one and hopefully should have it within the next few days. I have read good things about it.
 
daugirdas said:
14-24mm doesn't have a filter thread which I personally regard as a major let down. How about 17-35mm f/2.8 or 16-35mm f/4 that would be exactly as wide as your old lens?
Click to expand...

why is that a personal let down? :thinking:

Lee do a square filter for it anyway now
 
bullybaby2011 said:
But the 10-20 is only for crop sensors...so would that not mean the only Sigma option for full frame would have to be a 12-24?
Click to expand...

Sigma also does a 15-30mm (don't know aperture, think it's f/3.5-4.5). A mate had one and was really good - well built sharp, although he used it on a 40D so not the full image circle
 
boyfalldown said:
why is that a personal let down? :thinking:

Lee do a square filter for it anyway now
Click to expand...

Because for landscape photographers like myself for example, filters such as ND Grads are pretty much standard. I had the 14-24, and it was a let down for me as well, not being able to use filters. It resulted in me rarely using it, hence I sold it.

Lee do indeed make a filter holder and filters for this lens, but at £300 for the holder alone (IIRC), it's stupidly expensive for what it is.

Should I ever want a wide lens again, the 16-35 would be my lens of choice.
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
Because for landscape photographers like myself for example, filters such as ND Grads are pretty much standard. I had the 14-24, and it was a let down for me as well, not being able to use filters. It resulted in me rarely using it, hence I sold it.

Lee do indeed make a filter holder and filters for this lens, but at £300 for the holder alone (IIRC), it's stupidly expensive for what it is.

Should I ever want a wide lens again, the 16-35 would be my lens of choice.
Click to expand...


the lack of filters were one of the reasons I sold mine (not the main one though) - I hadn't realised the Lee was that expensive though.

My post was more aimed at the comment quoted which seemed to take the lens design as a personal affront though ;)
 
specialman said:
Sigma also does a 15-30mm (don't know aperture, think it's f/3.5-4.5). A mate had one and was really good - well built sharp, although he used it on a 40D so not the full image circle
Click to expand...

I just picked one of these up for my D700 and have to say it seems pretty sharp. 15mm is really wide on a full frame camera and the lens is really well built. Only downsides are no room for filters because of the built in hood and prone to a bit of flare. Should be able to pick them up used for well under £200 so really good VFM.
 
boyfalldown said:
My post was more aimed at the comment quoted which seemed to take the lens design as a personal affront though ;)
Click to expand...

I too was personally outraged by the design of the 14-24 to the extent that I petitioned the Vatican to have it excommunicated immediately...

May it forever burn in the Fiery Pits Of HELL...!!!!!
 
Woodsy said:
....Lee do indeed make a filter holder and filters for this lens, but at £300 for the holder alone (IIRC), it's stupidly expensive for what it is.
Click to expand...

It's £307 from WEX inc a 150mm ND filter.

The high price is probably due to Lee's film/tv origins - where £300 is considered relatively cheap for pretty well any kind of camera accessory (e.g. an Arri matte box can be getting on for £2,500 - and all it really does is hold three independent filters).

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/arri_mb-20_matte-box
 
5333249358_757c131fe1_z.jpg



Picked up the new 16-35 f4 VR lens today.The weather is aweful so havn,t been able to test it properly yet. Only shots taken with it up to now were in the shop,one of which I have posted. My first impression is that it looks pretty good.
 
Jack Flash said:
Only shots taken with it up to now were in the shop,one of which I have posted. My first impression is that it looks pretty good.
Click to expand...

That's most other people's view on it too, from what I've read ;). Good choice!

It's probably a far more practical choice than the 14-24mm, if nothing else :shrug:. Enjoy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top