Wide Angle for D700?

L

lukewoodford

FYI, I am Luke Woodford.....by Luke Woodford
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,320
Name
Luke Woodford
Edit My Images
No
There is no thread I can find on this. Im not really interested in the 14-24 because I want to use filters. Ill probably get it one day but not now. So whats the best alternative? The next 2 priorities are the 24-70 2.8 and the 85 1.4 just to give you an idea of what lenses ill have.

Cheers,

Luke
 
Tamron 17-35 if you don't want to spend loads - its excellent.

Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 if you want the best (bar the Nikkor 14-24) - I do have the 14-24 and the 17-35 and I much prefer the 17-35 even though the extreme corners are not as sharp.

BTW you can also use either a Tokina 12-24 or a Nikkor 12-24 on the D700 - I have been messing around with a Nikkor 12-24 and its perfectly usable from 17mm up to 24mm.
 
I have the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 and that is a cracking lens, you might want to give that a go.
 
Nikkor 17-35mm is superb but discontinued so you'll need to search eBay!
 
rdh said:
Nikon 14-24 or 17-35 are on my list also...

pd: What are the main quality differences between Tammy and Nikon 17-35 (except build quality of course)?
Click to expand...

If anything the Tamron is a tiny bit sharper than the Nikon at 35mm f/8.

Wider at 17mm the Nikkor has better corner sharpness.

The Nikkor is stronger at the 17mm than the 35mm end which is probably why the Tamron pulls ahead at 35mm.

I did some controlled tests and I could see very little difference in sharpness, colouration or contrast too be honest. At 17mm I can tell the difference, the Nikkor has better corners and are brigher (less vignetting)

The Nikkor 17-35 is getting really silly price wise, as its now discontinued the price is only going to go up further. Pragmatically, the Tamron will do everything you need, and do it very well.
 
lukewoodford said:
In regards to the tokina I read you couldn't use it on FX. Is this not true then?
Click to expand...

Well technically its a DX lens,but like the Nikon, gives full frame coverage from around 18mm to 24mm. Just force the D700 into Full Frame mode :)

I was messing around with a Nikkor 12-24 f/4 which is technically a DX lens, but its surprisingly good when the D700 is forced into FX mode.

I wouldn't really recommend this per se, but if you have either lens already you can certainly get decent 17mm performance stopped down.
 
puddleduck said:
Well technically its a DX lens,but like the Nikon, gives full frame coverage from around 18mm to 24mm. Just force the D700 into Full Frame mode :)

I was messing around with a Nikkor 12-24 f/4 which is technically a DX lens, but its surprisingly good when the D700 is forced into FX mode.

I wouldn't really recommend this per se, but if you have either lens already you can certainly get decent 17mm performance stopped down.
Click to expand...

The other thing I was thinking was (as the wide angle will be used 90% for landscapes) would 24mm be enough? Because then I wouldn't need to get one, I suppose only I can decide that but I found 17mm on crop wide, im just not sure :shrug:
 
17mm is really wide on full frame - remember on crop cameras you are only seeing a tiny part of the frame (FX is 2.25x larger)

So if 17mm was wide enough on DX, it'll be fine for FF.
 
puddleduck said:
17mm is really wide on full frame - remember on crop cameras you are only seeing a tiny part of the frame (FX is 2.25x larger)

So if 17mm was wide enough on DX, it'll be fine for FF.
Click to expand...

I thought crop was 1.5x or 1.6x smaller?
 
You could fit 4 DX sensors onto 1 FX sensor and still have a bit of space left over!

(turn DX crop mode on, and watch how much area you lose with the DX crop mask!)
 
lukewoodford said:
I think my best bet maybe to get to 24-70 then decide if 24 is wide enough for me. So damn expensive but a worth investment.
Click to expand...

D700 + Nikkor 24-70 rules mate. Can't tell you how pleased I am with mine :thumbs: If you've any experience of DX wide angles then, as has been said already, FX 24mm is equivalent to DX 16mm FoV, i.e. plenty wide :) Regards the choice of 17-35s, as has also been said, it seems that the Nikkor version is only going to go up in value ;)
 
puddleduck said:
You could fit 4 DX sensors onto 1 FX sensor and still have a bit of space left over!
Click to expand...

Is that right? I would have thought your earlier figure of 2.25x was more likely. ~5Mp (DX) x 2.25 = ~12Mp (FX) :shrug:
 
bulb763 said:
Regards the choice of 17-35s, as has also been said, it seems that the Nikkor version is only going to go up in value ;)
Click to expand...

I think ultimately this is going to end up costing more than the 14-24 - and might get to silly £1k+ numbers even used. I got quite lucky with both of mine, but it seems prices have risen quite a lot in the last few weeks.
 
puddleduck said:
I think ultimately this is going to end up costing more than the 14-24 - and might get to silly £1k+ numbers even used. I got quite lucky with both of mine, but it seems prices have risen quite a lot in the last few weeks.
Click to expand...

24-70 definately will be my next buy. I want someone to sell me one mint but used for £800 :)
 
If I were in your boat now I'd probably just go with the Nikkor 24-70. 24 on full frame really is pretty wide.

It depends what you want to do/ use it for though. I've got the 14-24, and while it's my least used lens to be honest, I still think it's awesome. The quality of the images it turns out is tremendous. I was worried about the whole filter thing too before I got it and almost went for the 17-35 cos of this.
But, what filters do you actually want to use? I've found that I can do most stuff post processing now just using lightroom 2, which has a great ND grad effect for example. Or, do you just not want to scratch that lovely big bulbous mound 'o glass :)
 
Dangleman said:
If I were in your boat now I'd probably just go with the Nikkor 24-70. 24 on full frame really is pretty wide.

It depends what you want to do/ use it for though. I've got the 14-24, and while it's my least used lens to be honest, I still think it's awesome. The quality of the images it turns out is tremendous. I was worried about the whole filter thing too before I got it and almost went for the 17-35 cos of this.
But, what filters do you actaully want to use? I've found that I can do most stuff post processing now just using lightroom 2, which has a great ND grad effect for example. Or, do you just not want to scratch that lovely big bulbous mound 'o glass :)
Click to expand...

I havn'y got any fliters yet but I would rather get the photo right without using too much PP. The main thing I want to do though is long exposures so need fliters. And I have decided to go with the 24-70.
 
lukewoodford said:
I havn'y got any fliters yet but I would rather get the photo right without using too much PP. The main thing I want to do though is long exposures so need fliters. And I have decided to go with the 24-70.
Click to expand...


Great choice, you'll love it. I've got the 28-70 2.8 myself. Long story but I managed to get it brand spanking new for £500! So, I then thought I may as well go silly wide and get the 14-24.
 
I have recently purchased the D700 and got the Tamron 17-35. It is a very good lens and will not disappoint when it comes to image quality. I also have the Nikkor 24-70 and I would get that first tbh as it is a belter of a lens and more useful for my needs with regards to landscapes, I only need 24mm and under occasionally.
 
devitt said:
I have recently purchased the D700 and got the Tamron 17-35. It is a very good lens and will not disappoint when it comes to image quality. I also have the Nikkor 24-70 and I would get that first tbh as it is a belter of a lens and more useful for my needs with regards to landscapes, I only need 24mm and under occasionally.
Click to expand...

Yeah and also thats gonna be my main wedding lens I think.
 
lukewoodford said:
I havn'y got any fliters yet but I would rather get the photo right without using too much PP. The main thing I want to do though is long exposures so need fliters. And I have decided to go with the 24-70.
Click to expand...

It's a fantastic lens, you'll be shocked at how fast it focuses... almost magical as someone on flickr said :¬)

pd: Thanks very much - Tammy it is!
 
Luke, to show you the difference between a crop camera, and full frame, below is a quick demo off the (DX) Nikkor 12-24 f/4 on my D700.

Left is 24mm in forced FX mode, right is the 14mm in DX mode (about the same FOV as 24mm on FF)


nikkor12-24-d700.jpg

​

The 12-24 works really well down to about 17mm before you start to see a vignette, so if you do have a DX lens that offers some FF coverage you may not need anything wider.
 
puddleduck said:
Luke, to show you the difference between a crop camera, and full frame, below is a quick demo off the (DX) Nikkor 12-24 f/4 on my D700.

Left is 24mm in forced FX mode, right is the 14mm in DX mode (about the same FOV as 24mm on FF)


nikkor12-24-d700.jpg

​

The 12-24 works really well down to about 17mm before you start to see a vignette, so if you do have a DX lens that offers some FF coverage you may not need anything wider.
Click to expand...


Thanks for doing that, I like your comparisons!
 
puddleduck said:
You could fit 4 DX sensors onto 1 FX sensor and still have a bit of space left over!

(turn DX crop mode on, and watch how much area you lose with the DX crop mask!)
Click to expand...
No you couldn't. If that's what your D700 shows you when you switch it to DX crop mode, then you need to get it fixed.

An FX sensor is actually 2.25 (1.5 squared) times as large as a DX sensor.
 
Looks like a vignette at 24mm on your sample
 
As with most people, the Nikkor 17-35 2.8 would be my first choice. I also have a Sigma 12-24, which after being replaced by Sigma, works pretty well apart from some chromatic abberations (mostly dealt with by the in camera Jpeg processing on newer models). The Sigma has the advantage of allowing you to experiment with a REALLY wide angle of view without getting too upset if it gets trashed. The usual warnings regarding Sigma quality variation apply though.
 
I must admit I'd really like to try the Sigma 12-24 - OK it has the 14-24's filter issue, but its much cheaper, smaller and 2mm wider.

Plus I imagine 12mm is absolutely insane :)
 
Excuse me for dropping in this thread at this late stage; but for a cheap and fast wide lens for my D700 I went with the Sigma 20/1.8

I managed to get it last month, from Jessops, for just a bit under £186. I have yet to give it a good test and run, but seeing the cost of the alternatives and what I need this for, I figured I couldn't go wrong with this lens at this price!
 
Its supposed to be a nice lens, that Sigma.

I was quite tempted to try one from Jessops, but with a 35/2 and a 28mm f/2.8 I'm already a bit top heavy in the wide angle prime department!
 
Thanks for the confirmation on the lens. I am still not too sure how well it performs, especially in strong sunlight.

That said, I was torn on what to get in the wide range, in the end I went with this purely for its special price offer.

On the flip side, I've found the 24-70 to be wide enough on the D700, if not too wide for my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top