Wide angle for Nikon

J13ERO

J13ERO

Suspended / Banned
Messages
90
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Evening guys, I'm looking at getting a wide angle for my d800 have been looking at primes but am open to options! Would be used for landscapes primarily however would like to try night sky and abit of architecture?

Thanks, James
 
Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is great optically and affordable.

It has its weaknesses (vignetting and complex geo distortion so might not be the best option for architecture). However it is sharp and there is nothing better for night sky.
 
Last edited:
Earlier this year I purchased a Nikon 20-35 for use on my D800 and must say that I am impressed with it's performance. It is an older lens and therefore can be picked up for around the £400-£500 mark and imo a really good buy.
 
I really wanted the 14-24 but in the end I decided on the 16-35 so that I can use filters on the odd occasion I do landscape. The new 20G looks great but doesn't seem to be in stock anywhere. I will go for one of these next year sometime to compliment the zoom but I think zooms are worth their weight when out in the field doing landscape for slight adjustments in composition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
The 16-35 is one of the best Nikon choices so you can still use cheaper 100mm filters, which you'll no doubt end up needing at some point with landscapes. If speed is important to you, and I think 2.8 is when doing night work then perhaps the older 17-35 2.8?
 
J13ERO said:
Evening guys, I'm looking at getting a wide angle for my d800 have been looking at primes but am open to options! Would be used for landscapes primarily however would like to try night sky and abit of architecture?

Thanks, James
Click to expand...

James

Depending on what you shoot make sure you want that ultra wide - Nikon produce a 24 120mm and a 24 85 which are supposed to be very good and very handy to walk around with and great value for money

If you need it for landscapes ........ 14mm is quite wide ........ but the 16 35mm f4 is cheaper and very sharpe

my own personal opinion is that the 24mm 120mm is a good starting place to decide what you need
 
Being a Tokina fan I would say also look at there 16-28 and 17-35. They are often over looked but both very good lenses in there own right.
 
Ones I have used on a D800:

Samyang 14mm 2.8 - Excellent, very sharp. Manual focus only and no 'natural' ability to fit filters as it has no front thread.
Zeiss 21mm - Excellent, manual focus only but not to difficult to focus using live view and a loupe. 82mm filter thread means more expensive filters.
Nikon 28mm 1.8g - Again excellent, not mega wide, but for me a nice focal length and versatile as well.
Nikon 28mm 2.8 Ais - Surprisingly good. manual focus only and not as sharp as the 1.8 but useful and cheapish.
Nikon 17-35 2.8 - Good, not as sharp as the primes, but the zoom is useful.

If I had to choose out of those above I would still go for the 28mm 1.8 (probably as I love primes, it is excellent on the D800 and I like the field of view).
 
No one so far has mentioned the Sigma 35 mm Art. Realise it's not Nikon, but a load cheaper than theirs and perhaps sharper.
Don't also forget the 20mm d and as others have said the 16-35vr.
Got all three and love the all for different reasons. The sigma is my sharpest lens though. And my 20mm my cheapest. And my 16-35 my most versatile.
 
I had been looking at the 14mm samyang but didn't realise you couldn't use filters with it! I also don't have a huge budget how much is the nikon 20mm does anybody know??
 
As for the filter. Polariser makes no sense as polarised sky looks just too weird at 14mm.

The only thing that makes sense is a ND filter. The best way i found is to get a 100x100mm (or bigger) square filter and hold it in front of the lens during exposure.

The 20mm Nikon is a way more expensive than the Samyang at £679.00
 
Another vote for the 16-35 f4.

If I ever think about astro photography again (ie if we go to northumberland again next year!!) I'll get the samyang 14mm.
 
Would there be a zoom lens that's good at night sky stuff without having to drop like a grand, primarily it'd be landscape stuff but I'd like to start trying a bit of night sky
 
Tamron 17-35, 2.8 at the wide end and under £200 used. I did a few astro shots with mine that turned out OK.

I liked the Nikon 20-35 2.8 but be aware it doesn't focus very close compared to similar wide angles. For close focus nothing beats the 28mm 2.8 AIS.
 
The AF-S 16-35 f/4D is good for normal photos but you won't like it for astrophoto (huge coma and astigmatism). It is also rather slow for night shots at f/4.

For the same price as 16-35 you can also buy a combo Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5G for normal pictures like lendscapes and Samyang 14/2.8 for night photos. Then you could have two lenses for the price of a single 16-35 and way less than the 14-24. You can save even more if you buy second hand.

At landscape apertures there isn't any significant difference between the 18-35 and 16-35 or even 14-24.

I would waste time with old D lenses (17-35, 20-35, 18-35, 14mm or 20mm) if you want to do star shots. You want modern lens designs with a plethora of aspherical elements and modern coatings. Night photography is demanding and unforgiving :(
 
mpe said:
The AF-S 16-35 f/4D is good for normal photos but you won't like it for astrophoto (huge coma and astigmatism). It is also rather slow for night shots at f/4.

For the same price as 16-35 you can also buy a combo Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5G for normal pictures like lendscapes and Samyang 14/2.8 for night photos. Then you could have two lenses for the price of a single 16-35 and way less than the 14-24. You can save even more if you buy second hand.

At landscape apertures there isn't any significant difference between the 18-35 and 16-35 or even 14-24.

I would waste time with old D lenses (17-35, 20-35, 18-35, 14mm or 20mm) if you want to do star shots. You want modern lens designs with a plethora of aspherical elements and modern coatings. Night photography is demanding and unforgiving :(
Click to expand...
Thanks for that MPE I shall as the 18-35 to my list of things to look into :)
 
No-ones mentioned the Ziess 21mm. I use it, I've noticed mine is quite soft in the corners, even at F11. Sharp in the middle. I would need to get it fixed. If not, I will move it on for a 14-24mm. 14-24 do take filters, you just need to buy into the Lee SW150 system and it might be worth doing that. The 16-35 is a cheaper alt but the 14-24 is supposed to be better.
 
I've got the Zeiss 25mm and it lives on my D800 for landscapes. The quality is absolutely superb and it's made me fall in love with primes again so I've also been looking at another lens for the bag. I feel the Zeiss 21mm is probably too close to the 25mm so have thought about the Zeiss 18mm or Nikon 20mm. Alternatively I'm also considering a 35mm maybe the Zeiss or Sigma art? Decisions, decisions
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Cheers Steve. AF isn't a priority for me as I almost never use it for landscapes. The quality of the optics is definitely at the top of the shopping list though. I've heard a lot of good things about the new Art lenses but my heart keeps being drawn to Zeiss. I feel another evening of googling reviews coming on.
 
Delta Skies said:
Cheers Steve. AF isn't a priority for me as I almost never use it for landscapes. The quality of the optics is definitely at the top of the shopping list though. I've heard a lot of good things about the new Art lenses but my heart keeps being drawn to Zeiss. I feel another evening of googling reviews coming on.
Click to expand...

I'd quite like a 35mm art. I would use it for landscapes, cityscapes but also portraits/events I sometimes do. I use an MF Ziess 21mm lens. I do really like it, but for architecture/cityscapes its flawed as its really quite soft in the corners, great in the middle. I am actually going to have to get it looked at but thats another conversation and I am sure it can be fixed. I never noticed it really with the landscapes but shot some cityscapes at F8 and noticed (ok at 100% view) they were really soft in the corners. I thought originally I had missed the focus but the centre portion was tack sharp. On a landscape it matters less but with architecture (which it's suprisingly good for) it's a big annoyance.

It might be a bad copy, probably is, but its made me less enthusiastic about Ziess.
 
That's understandable Steve. The 50mm Art is also supposed to be a cracker but we've already got that length and wouldn't always be a go to lens when out looking for landscapes or architecture
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top