What to go for?

Robert Eva

Robert Eva

Suspended / Banned
Messages
300
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
On a D850 , do I get the Nikon 20 mm 1.8 or the Sigma 14-24 2.8? Use would be landscape primary with a developing interest in astro .
Cheers ,
Rob.
 
•


You're kinda trapped, Robert.

That trap is the resolution of 45,7 MS of the D850. No matter
what focal length you are contemplating, the optical quality of
the lens should be adequate… read paramount!
 
I thought that was what he meant Andrew , so which one do I go for ? !
 
Last edited:
So specifically what would you would you suggest Kodiak?
 
Robert Eva said:
What's paramount?
Click to expand...
more important than anything else; supreme.
Robert Eva said:
what would you suggest?
Click to expand...
I would go for a IF nikkor lens from 14 to 20mm ƒ1.4 to ƒ 2,8.
I only have eyes for lens that are a final solution and not for
the price. If the solution is not final, then one looses money.
I can afford anything but will allow me only what I need.
 
Last edited:
Hang on a minute. I thought the Nikon 20mm 1.8 was one of the sharpest wide lenses ever made by Nikon full stop. In fact I'm sure reviews will back me up but I cant be bothered to find any this early in the morning.

The Sigma 20mm f1.4 dg hsm art beats it though I believe.
 
That is what i believed, I cant decide whether to go prime or zoom , The lenses i am considering as far as I can see all fall into the category of”good glass” and I cant see that I could get anything better for what I am looking to spend.
The lenses are narrowed down to Nikon 20mm 1.8 or Sigma 20mm 1.4 art or Nikon 14-24 2.8 or Sigma 14-24 2.8
 
Robert Eva said:
The lenses are narrowed down to Nikon 20mm 1.8 or Sigma 20mm 1.4 art or Nikon 14-24 2.8 or Sigma 14-24 2.8
Click to expand...


I use the Nikkor 14~24 ƒ2,8… very good lens, my choice of the three!
 
As good as the Nikon 14-24 is, the 20mm f1.8 is optically better than it at 20mm. The 20mm also doesn't suffer as badly with flare, the 14-24 is prone to it. Factor in you can use ordinary filters (be it square or screw in) on the 20mm rather than the scarily expensive ones for the 14-24 and you have to have a specific need for 14-24, which from your opening post I'm not sure you have. The 20mm lenses are also faster than the zooms, this may be of use of you intend to use them for astro work - the Sigma is two thirds of a stop quicker than the Nikon too which is a stop and a third faster than the zooms.

The Nikon 14-24 has the advantage of being a zoom and obviously goes very much wider, but getting the best from even a 20mm wide angle (which is still extremely wide on FX) takes skill and practice. The Nikon 14-24 is also weather sealed which may or may not matter to you.

Haven't used either of the siggies you mention so cannot comment on those, I did try the earlier siggy 20mm and it wasn't great, but then neither was the earlier Nikon 20mm ;). The new Art 20mm is very heavy (as is the Nikon 14-24) and the Sigma 14-24 is even heavier!! No doubt their build quality will be superb if the rest of the art range is anything to go by, Sigma really seem to be getting their act together.

Oh, and if it helps, the 20mm f1.8g has a gold ring - just like the 14-24 ;)

One other point maybe worth throwing in, the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 is also an excellent lens, and very much cheaper than the Nikon or Sigma zooms, same issues apply though (filters, aperture etc ...).
 
I have the sigma 20mm art, and find it a pretty fun lens. Also a nisi filter holder which works well with it.
Quick example (although not landscape) ;)

Urban Living by Paulie-W, on Flickr
 
Paulie-W said:
(although not landscape)
Click to expand...


…cityscape, close enough!

It has the tonal density of what could be
in the suburbs of Gotham City! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top