Which wide lens does not have barrel distortion aside from the rectilinear 15mm? Is there even one? Or maybe a zoom that starts to lose the distortion at a certain focal length?

Well, there was that prototype digital F3 mentioned on the NR blog a couple of days ago that's being sold on ebay. It probably doesn't perform as well as you would want though, which shows that the real problem with camera obsolescence is not the mechanics of the body (although I'm sure that helps) but the sensor and other internals.

I could go on and on, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

So as the old saying goes, spend your money on good glass, instead of bodies, the lenses will always be with you, but in three years........the bodies will be getting ready to go out to pasture.

unless you have a manual focus F series body.

whish someone would come up with a way to turn a F3 into digital.

sigh.....................

NSXType-R

NSXType-R said:
It's not really a sports lens, but I guess you could get interesting stuff with such a wide lens.

Ofcourse it is not :) it just hard to freeze active kids' motion below 1/200 shutter speed. I am pretty happy with the result, pictures are sharp it just sometimes I forgot to change the aperture when I need to increase the DOF.

Lots of people have tried it out, but I don't think it would be worth using it on a D700 though. Is there any particular question you have about it though?

Has anyone tried the Tokina 11-16 2.8 yet?

JY said:
Thought to just give an update.
I saw someone was selling a 14-24 2.8 for a reasonable price in a very good condition and couldn't resist.

I didn't like it at first as I have never shoot at such a wide angle of view. It is a pain to catch an active little girl who is running around with a wide angle lens. But slowly, I started to like this lens. It is super sharp and contrasty too.

Last saturday, I shoot a kid's birthday in door and surprised that I could keep the minimum shutter speed at 1/200 with ISO at around 2000-4000sh with my d700. As i am getting more comfortable with these focal length, now I keep thinking the 24 1.4 maybe better for it speed, weight, able to put a filter on and still wide enough for landscape (not the main purpose but it is a bonus).

It's not really a sports lens, but I guess you could get interesting stuff with such a wide lens.

Thought to just give an update.
I saw someone was selling a 14-24 2.8 for a reasonable price in a very good condition and couldn't resist.

I didn't like it at first as I have never shoot at such a wide angle of view. It is a pain to catch an active little girl who is running around with a wide angle lens. But slowly, I started to like this lens. It is super sharp and contrasty too.

Last saturday, I shoot a kid's birthday in door and surprised that I could keep the minimum shutter speed at 1/200 with ISO at around 2000-4000sh with my d700. As i am getting more comfortable with these focal length, now I keep thinking the 24 1.4 maybe better for it speed, weight, able to put a filter on and still wide enough for landscape (not the main purpose but it is a bonus).

I also have the 16-35mm vr ii for the d700. Vignetting can be controlled. The lens is fantastic but there is a bit of distortion. Overall on a full frame, I am very satisfied. It is sharp and a great carry on lens. I always take it when I go to Times square.

the DOF of the 35 1.4 is pretty shallow on my d700.

testing in nikon plaza.

last friday in the snow in osaka!

20 second moonlit exposure.

Yea, as Ronin.1 said f/1.4 doesn't give much background blur @ 24mm. About the same amount as 50mm at f/3. If subject isolation through background defocus was one of your ideas, drop it. ;)

I mention this because once upon a time I had bought a quite wide lens for the time (28 f/2.8 AI-s) thinking it would be great for interior use. What _I_ found was that the types of interior spaces I found myself in were busy congested places and what ended up happening was that the frame became a jumble of subjects.

I forgot to mention, The 16-35mm f4 VR. does had a bit of distortion and vignetting but that can automatically corrected when importing with LR3

On an FX body, I would consider 20mm or less an ultra-wide, and on a DX body, 14mm or less.

What you consider an ultra-wide lens is a bit different than what I would normally consider an ultra-wide lens. 24mm is a very, very nice focal length for a wide angle lens, but I would not consider it to be an ultra-wide and I most certainly would not consider a 28mm lens to be an ultra-wide angle lens.

I have a 17-35mm f2.8 which I like a great deal on film and a 10-24 DX which pretty much duplicates it except for the speed. You start getting dramatic changes in perspective once you go below 24mm. If that is what you want, I would agree with sevencrossing's recommendation to get a 16-35mm f4 VR.

One other thing, the depth of field of ultra-wide angle lenses is typically quite great, especially when stopped down and is the hallmark of their classic use. That is very, very different from the idea of shooting an f1.4 prime wide open. Neither approach is better or worse, just different. You should consider that carefully before making your selection.

Cheers!

I have the 16-35 f4.VRII ( on a D700) I use it for interiors and landscapes, it's an excellent lens.
the dof at f 4 is quite big, so not too good if you want to get the background out of focus on group shots

There is a grey importer here who is selling the 35 way cheaper than the 24, like A$600 different. It's so tempting to go with the 35, however, now i am more interested to the nikkor 24-70. If this is my business I would just buy all of them. But getting more than 2 good lenses just for shooting my daughter and hobby, its hard to swallow at this stage, grrrrr...

Hi aetas. I currently shoot with a D700, 16-35 f/4 VR, 50mm 1.4, and 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR. The 16-35 has been on my camera a very high percentage of the time since I purchased it back in August. I've used it for shots at a wedding reception, and at most family indoor events. It's also been great for landscapes. The problem I have with the lens is that it is tricky to use for portraits. Though I've gotten some great shots with it, for headshots I rely on my 70-300 and 50.

I disagree with some of the folks on this thread (and elsewhere) who recommend going with an ultra-wide, a zoom (70-300 or 70-200) and a 50mm *if* you're going to be shooting people in close quarters. You can't always just "use your feet". In fact, I think most of the people making this recommendation have a second camera body and zoom close at hand :-). The ultra-wide makes for uncomfortable portraits at parties. I'm actually looking at adding the 24-70 f/2.8 to my bag to deal with this situation. Anything wider than 20-24mm, while making for some cool effects, isn't really ideal for close up shots of people. And it's inconvenient to have to switch between a 16-35 and 70-300 several times during the course of an event.

BTW... just glanced at your website and really enjoyed your photos!

I know they are not cheap but what does everyone think of the 17-35 f2.8, or 16-35 f4. Any hands on with both. On ff

Yes its too bad the price tag for the 14-24mm is such a deterent for many consumers. It really is the best wide angle lens on the market. Its just a wonderful combo with the D700 and I can only imagine how amazing it will be once the D700 refresh comes out this year. I actually traded my D300 in for my D700 in 2009 and my 11-16mm Tokina for the 14-24mm. I was left shelling a significantly less $800 for the D700 and $1200 for the 14-24mm at my local Nikon rep over here. I would like the pick up the Lee SW 150 filter set for the 14-24mm that I have discussed with AdamZ in other threads though. Very hard to track one done though :(

Gareth said:
But you wont find too many people who own both, or have tried both (FX) . . . I did say limited, not none. Try the 35, it will make you happy.

I've owned both a 24mm AI-S and a 35mm AI-S since the early 1980s (currently, I own an AF 24mm f/2.8D, AF 35mm f/2.0D, and a 35mm f/1.4 AI-S). Mind you, I'm not suggesting shooting close-up, head-and-shoulders portraits with the 24mm as a matter of course. But, I can shoot three-quarter, and full-length people shots with a 24mm on an FX body all day long.

The cool thing is that the new 24mm f/1.4 opens up a whole new world of low-light and/or shallow-focus, wide-angle photography, which had been previously unavailable to us. I've seen what a 35mm f/1.4 can do, and it's amazing--I can't wait to start shooting FX with a 24mm lens that fast as well. It's likely the first lens I'll buy as soon as I acquire an FX body.

Back on-topic, I already own an FX ultra-wide, the AF 14mm f/2.8D (plus, 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, fixed-focal length, FX Nikkors). If you have an FX body, and want an ultra-wide prime, the 14mm is kinda the only game in town. The 18mm, while an attractive alternative, due to its much smaller bulk and weight, has a reputation for being soft (which I know first-hand, because my copy isn't the sharpest tool in the drawer either). The AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm, constant-aperture, f/4.0G VR is also a very attractive option (and, kinda the only option for a short, Nikkor FX zoom with VR).

But, even though most wouldn't consider a 24mm an "ultra-wide," the two-stop increase in speed in the new AF-S 24mm f/1.4G will likely trump all of my other lenses when it comes to choosing which wide-angle lens to grab as I walk out the door.

Of course it's my point of view. But you wont find too many people who own both, or have tried both (FX), and dissagree with me.

I did say limited, not none. Try the 35, it will make you happy.

On a side note. I see the X100 has very little barrel distortion due to is being a sort of rangefinder, having a DX sensor and the lens being shorter.

Gareth said:
The 24 has . . . very limited value for people (too much distortion).

Well, that depends entirely on your point of view (pun, intended).

LOL to each his own :-) I use my 150 mm prime as much as I can!

The barrel distortion is very uniform and therefore very easily correctable. didnt know about the af issues..

The 24 1.4 has barrel distortion. The 35 1.4 has barrel distortion. The 24 has AF issues and has very limited value for people (too much distortion). The 35 is great for people. I have the 70-200 VRII and I used it yesterday after a couple of weeks shooting the 35 as I bought a 77mm nikon polarizer. I went ooh, i miss the 35 and swapped it back over. To be honest, the 70-200 will not get much use for general shots.

The 35 1.4G is a champion.

My ol fav was the 28 mm FOV but having seen some sample 24mm F1.4 images I think I can live with it being a bit wider ;-) I think if I ever switch to FX this is the lense that will tempt me over. its so sharp all over!!

Who needs a macro lens I will just use my 24mm F1.4 !
Warning large file (from photozone's review of the lens): http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1003429173_84GZq-O.jpg