Wide Angle for D800

chrism_scotland

chrism_scotland

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,958
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Folks,
I'm looking for a full frame wide angle to go with my D800, I've been considering 3 lenses - the Nikon 16-35 f4, Nikon 18-35 f3.5-4.5 G and also the Samyang 14mm f2.8.
I've ruled out the Samyang for now as having used one before the distortion is severe and I'd prefer the flexibility of a zoom.
I've been weighing up costs and obviously the 18-35 is much cheaper than the 16-35, I'm sure I could live without the extra 2mm and I'm not sure I really need VR, most of my wide angle work would be done on a tripod anyway.
I've been reading a number of reviews which suggest that IQ between the 2 zooms is almost identical but I wondered what actual users have experienced?
 
The Sigma 12-24 is my choice of UWA for FF and is very well corrected for distortion, although (as per the laws of physics) perspective is quite exaggerated! If money was no object, the Nikkor 14-24 would probably replace it in my bag but on the D700 the Sigma's fine. There's a Cosina 19-35 which is FF compatible but does distort quite a bit - would post an example but Yv has it ATM!
 
I remember wanting to try one out a while ago and asked the same question. I've seen some of Gary Coyle's 16-35 shots which look great. I picked up a sigma 14 f2.8 which I used for the first time at the weekend. I'd love to know how the 12-24 performs on the d800?

S
 
Are you not considering the 14-24? It is pricey but one of their best. I also had an old 17-35 which was pretty darn good and reasonably wide. However, I do like having f2.8 (or faster) on all my lenses- better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it- it's heavier granted but I'm not exactly a waif:D. So, I can see the appeal of the other lenses but having shot with both the 16-35 and the 14-24 there is no doubt the 14-24 has better image quality if that's what you want. Filter kits were eye wateringley expensive though I'll give you that- perhaps cheaper now?
 
Dr_O said:
Are you not considering the 14-24? It is pricey but one of their best. I also had an old 17-35 which was pretty darn good and reasonably wide. However, I do like having f2.8 (or faster) on all my lenses- better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it- it's heavier granted but I'm not exactly a waif:D. So, I can see the appeal of the other lenses but having shot with both the 16-35 and the 14-24 there is no doubt the 14-24 has better image quality if that's what you want. Filter kits were eye wateringley expensive though I'll give you that- perhaps cheaper now?
Click to expand...
IQ seems to depend on who's reviewing the lenses, me personally, ive owned one 14-24mm and wasn't that impressed, ive owned several different copies of the 16-35 and all have been excellent, also owned 2 copies of the Sigma 12-24mm but both vignetted horribly until f/8 and neither were sharp in the corners no matter how much you stepped them down, however this is Sigmas QC problems as ive seen images from this lens which were superbly sharp corner to corner and wide open, distortion control is amazing for such a wide lens, im currently looking for one for a project ive got lined up in the summer and its rumoured that Sigma are going to introduce an "ART" version 12-24mm lens which would be a killer lens if the rest of their new "ART" lenses are anything to go by.
 
Gary Coyle said:
IQ seems to depend on who's reviewing the lenses, me personally, ive owned one 14-24mm and wasn't that impressed, ive owned several different copies of the 16-35 and all have been excellent, also owned 2 copies of the Sigma 12-24mm but both vignetted horribly until f/8 and neither were sharp in the corners no matter how much you stepped them down, however this is Sigmas QC problems as ive seen images from this lens which were superbly sharp corner to corner and wide open, distortion control is amazing for such a wide lens, im currently looking for one for a project ive got lined up in the summer and its rumoured that Sigma are going to introduce an "ART" version 12-24mm lens which would be a killer lens if the rest of their new "ART" lenses are anything to go by.
Click to expand...

True, some of it must come down to the scenarios and some down to sample variation- wide angle lenses seem to have more Friday specials than others. I still read people complaining about 'ghosting' and flare' on the 14-24 and my first thought is 'really?- on every shot? are you sure we're talking about the same lens?' I'm not saying it doesn't do it but part of me thinks their looking for it but the flip side is maybe the buildings/ landscapes etc that I shot didn't highlight those 'frailties' in the same way. I thought the detail and contrast on the 14-24 was great and it was sharp across the frame. I borrowed a 16-35 on a view occasions but I just didn't think it was as good- it was a while ago now and maybe in part it's because for the price I felt the corners should have been sharper and sometimes the contrast seemed to lack. Interesting you found it better- having said that at 18mm and F10 with most scenes you wouldn't be able to tell and I guess to some extent their lies the crux- they are capable of doing different things well so it depends what people are looking for.

I really wanted the Sigma because it was 2mm wider but other Sigma experiences where I became familiar with post offices meant I decided they were all gash:D. I have been keeping an eye on the recent ART lenses although I was cynical at first - I do recall Sigma coming out a few years back saying 'we have addressed QC' and nothing changed as far as I could tell. Does now seem they have started to rectify that- no doubt someone took a proper look at the books and thought 'we're making no money because of all these warranty fixes' - it probably wasn't great news for their blind assembly workers or worn out robots but hey ho- progress and all that:p. So, a well made 12-24 with reliable optics could be exciting times:)
 
Out of those two, I'd get the 16-35 f4. Distortion seems less pronounced, and seems more consistently sharp across the zoom range. We've got a few 18-35s at work.. they aren't that great value for money actually. I'm not a massive fan of the 16-35 either if truth be known, but it's more consistent than the 18-35 and therefore, despite being pricier, represents better value IMO. Nothing is more annoying than having a zoom lens that has "good spots" and weaker spots in the zoom range.
 
Can't comment on other options as I'm relatively new to Nikon and went straight for the D800 + 16-35 F4, I'm really happy with both, the 16-35 has already produced some of my best shots to date

Simon
 
I agree.... it's also £1300. It is an astounding lens however.
 
I've played with the 200 f2... I have to agree.. it's a design marvel!
 
What's wrong with the 14-24? Cheaper than this Zeiss stuff and much awesomeness- well, unless you use Gary 's copy:p

Edit: meant to say I'd look at the tamron 24-70 if you were going for a 24-70. A lot of people seem to think it's better than the Nikon. The old Nikon 28-70 is also an option- unless you need 24mm of course
 
Last edited:
Ideally I wasn't looking to spend loads and while I appreciate the 14-24 is a cracker its just too specialist for me.

I'm probably looking at spending £600-£700 which would get me a used (or grey imprt) 16-35, I half have in my head that the 16-35 would be used for landscapes as well as a wide zoom for hiking, saving me carting a load of primes (24, Sigma 35, Nikon 50) - I may yet decide to sell my Sigma 35mm which would free up more cash but I think in doing that I'd go for a 24-70 and probably a wide prime for when I need it (Samyang 14mm or even the Nikon 20mm f2.8D)
 
I had a similar choice between the 16-35 and the Zeiss 18 & 21. I went with the 16-35 in the end as I believe it is the best option for under £1K. I've read many reviews that said the 16-35 is optically better than the Zeiss 18 and optically as good as the Zeiss 21.
 
Last edited:
Understandable Chris. 16-35 does seem good option for you. Out of interest just had a look at prices- still quite pricey compared to when released- £783 mpb(inc p&p) used, £829 amazon, £809 dig rev, £742 panamoz or £705 with an eyebrow raising bank transfer, £759 HDEW.
 
Have to say I think the Tokina 16-28f2.8 takes some beating. Very sad to let mine go when i went lightweight and swopped my FX kit for DX. If you check the reviews you will find it very highly regarded by most.
 
Gary Coyle said:
You need to stick a 400mm f/2.8 VR OR A 200mm f/2 VR on the end of your camera then. LOL
Click to expand...

Well, true. Apples vs oranges though. If you look at what Canon versions of these, you'll see you can get the same thing but noticeably lighter - 2.5 vs 2.9kg and 3.8 vs 4.6kg.

These are indisputably great (I had a chance to use the 200 f/2) but they just have to be.

However, the 14-24/2.8 is unique and I know people who switched systems because of it.
 
Yep, I used a novoflex adaptor for the 5d MKII and 14-24. You didn't use to be able to put Canon on F mount but things always move on so maybe now
 
Dr_O said:
Yep, I used a novoflex adaptor for the 5d MKII and 14-24. You didn't use to be able to put Canon on F mount but things always move on so maybe now
Click to expand...

How do you control the aperture? 14-24 is a G lens and there is no mechanical coupling on EOS. Or was it one of these expensive adaptors with manual aperture control? Do you have to open/close the aperture for exposure?

The opposite way (canon EF to F mount) does not work due to longer flange to focal plane distance of F-mount standard. Almost all other systems can use Nikon F lenses but Nikon users have to use Nikon lenses only (or no focus at infinity) :(
 
mpe said:
...Or was it one of these expensive adaptors with manual aperture control?...
Click to expand...

Yes:D. Although it is relative- over £3k of kit involved so £140 seemed ok- or really it was the price you had to pay to get the job done- cheaper than some filters I've bought I told myself lol

You manually change the aperture by moving the lever integrated into the adaptor. You can get cheaper ones without aperture control but then your down to f22- not an issue for the older nikon lenses with an aperture ring but as you say G lenses screw you up.[/quote]
 
Last edited:
mpe said:
The opposite way (canon EF to F mount) does not work due to longer flange to focal plane distance of F-mount standard. Almost all other systems can use Nikon F lenses but Nikon users have to use Nikon lenses only (or no focus at infinity) :(
Click to expand...
Dont aperture sell EF to F mount adaptors????
 
mmm, I seem to have made a mess of trying to quote and reply. Away to fix.

Edit:fixed:)
 
Last edited:
Have you considered the Tokina 16-28 2.8? It's been getting some great reviews and nudges up extremely close to the Nikkor 14-24 on most reviews, sometimes gaining a little lead in sharpness! More than likely an incredible lens just like the Tokina 11-16 2.8 was (and still is) on DX .................worth considering.
 
Having stumped up serious cash for the D800, I'd be inclined to save for the Nikkor.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 - I'm not actually looking for such a wide lens myself but I was in my LCS yesterday and the manager just happended to mention that he has the 14 2.8 in stock second hand and did I want to try it on my D610. I was pretty impressed with it and particularly how light it is compared to the 14-24. It even has an aperture ring so would also work on my film slr!
 
boliston said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 - I'm not actually looking for such a wide lens myself but I was in my LCS yesterday and the manager just happended to mention that he has the 14 2.8 in stock second hand and did I want to try it on my D610. I was pretty impressed with it and particularly how light it is compared to the 14-24. It even has an aperture ring so would also work on my film slr!
Click to expand...

Good point. I use my 14-24 Nikkor almost exclusively at 14mm (sometimes wishing it would go a bit wider). The prime would probably actually work better for me. Having said that, it is only slightly cheaper than the zoom, and doesn't have the SWM focusing motor.
 
The cost of the Nikkor 14mm is not that far from the 14-24/2.8 and optically quite weak. I wouldn't buy it any more.

If want a prime - Samyang 14mm (great bargain) or Zeiss Distagon 15mm.
 
View attachment 8592 I bought the Nikon 16-35mm F4.I cannot find fault with it. It has VR as well .I never thought I would use it on a wide angle lens but....this shot was hand held 1 second, at f11, ISO 200 @16mm there is movement on the right caused by me pressing the shutter.I was impressed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top