Because the 14-24 and 17-35 Nikkors are so expensive and my use for them appears be limited to non-commercial work, I have ordered a whole pile of used after-market lenses. I have been disappointed in all of them so far and should have invested in some quality Nikon glass which would have cost less than the 5 lenses I now have to get rid of. Not only that but used mint condition Nikkors go up in value.
Wide\Ultra wide angle for D700
(64 posts) (32 voices)-
Two things that would be a give away to potential lense usefulness that I have never seen.
1. Picture of the lense at the mount end.
a. Most cheap lense have a very small piece of glass there. This limits the light and image transfer, especially to a full frame sensor.
2. Complete specs.
a. Instead of telling the size of glass elements, they give you a filter size.
b. I find it deceiving to give an 82mm filter size for lense with the end element less than half that.Posted 4 years ago # -
The Tokina 10-17mm fisheye performs remarkably well on a D700, once you have 'shaved' the sunhood off.
As is, the sunhood will be visible in the FX frame (the Tokina is a DX lens). But once you saw off the sunhood (which - granted - is a bit unnerving) the is no vignetting to speak off, and very crisp corners. From 10-13mm you get a cropped circular image (akin to the image of an 8mm fisheye on a DX frame), and beyond 14mm you have a full frame (rectangular) fisheye lens.
The same can be done with the Nikkor 10.5mm, but you don't get the versatility of the zoom. Sharpness-wise they are very comparable.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ JY : I am one of the members who do not advocate closing your kind of threads http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3186#post-54368
especially when you have given so much good detail re your back ground and expected use. When I posted on this topic, the whole thread seem to have vanished .. , not even just closed but totally vanished .. puff!! I guess the powers that be just dont like it.. sigh..
anyway .. For you mr JY I would suggest that you look into the 24-85 zooms there are 2 versions(min F2.8 and F3.5) and both should suit what you want from them. basically a baby chaser ! :-) http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/237-nikkor-af-24-85mm-f28-4-d-if-review--test-report?start=1
PS also consider the new 24-120 VR F4.0 (the old 24-120 VR has a mixed reputation)
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Ultra-wide f/2.8 lenses for FX:
1. AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D; $529: great bang-for-the-buck wide-angle FX lens; best feature: it's super-compact and extremely lightweight.
2. AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D; $600 (used): although this lens is no longer in production, it's a neat focal length on FX (I bought this because I broke my 20mm f/2.8). Unfortunately, it's not as sharp as my $99 AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX lens!
3. AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D; $1,430: super ultra-wide with surprisingly little barrel distortion; best feature: it's smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom; worst feature: doesn't accept front filters.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Thanks heartyfisher, 7crossing & studio460.
The 24-120 f4 VR2 is actually very tempting, however, I prefer to get one of the 1.4 primes, hence I do not think to get the 24-70 2.8 (i have tried it and the AF is even faster than the 70-200). I prefer to pay more for something I will keep for long such as the 70-200 2.8. Lesson learnt from the 50 1.8. It was pretty nice for the price, but then you see something better and want it as well. I may need to see more pictures taken from the 24 and 35 and other lenses mentioned. Reason I post was to see some more experienced users' opinions.
Thanks again guys.
Posted 2 years ago # -
JY said:
Thanks heartyfisher, 7crossing & studio460.The 24-120 f4 VR2 is actually very tempting, however, I prefer to get one of the 1.4 primes, hence I do not think to get the 24-70 2.8 (i have tried it and the AF is even faster than the 70-200). I prefer to pay more for something I will keep for long such as the 70-200 2.8. Lesson learnt from the 50 1.8. It was pretty nice for the price, but then you see something better and want it as well. I may need to see more pictures taken from the 24 and 35 and other lenses mentioned. Reason I post was to see some more experienced users' opinions.
Thanks again guys.
I like where you're going with this!
I didn't include the new AF-S Nikkor f/1.4G in the list above only because it wouldn't be considered an "ultra-wide" by most. However, if I had an FX body, I would definitely be leaning toward the 24mm f/1.4, over its wider siblings, for its ultra-fast aperture. An f/1.4 lens enables some exciting photo opportunities, not possible with an f/2.8 lens, and I would totally be willing to trade a wider field-of-view for a full, two-stop increase in speed.
Nikkor's short zooms are far too bulky and heavy for my tastes. I think Nikon's NEW "Holy Trinity" will soon be redefined by the new AF-S f/1.4 primes. Those three lenses (24mm, 35mm, 85mm) will be at the top of my list as soon as I get an FX body.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Hi Studio460, my post was closed and linked to this tread. I wasn't looking into the super wide lense, more into wide to cover my focal length below the 70-200.
I think I am in between 24 and 35 (or 24-70 2.8 if I end up with zoom). The 24 1.4 seems to have a better built and optic quality while the 35 1.4 may be better as an all around lens in terms of focal length. Price are almost the same.
I normally will go for the better built quality, however I am not sure if I will like the focal length of the 24 1.4 when shooting other than landscape, i.e shooting people. If the built quality are exactly the same, I will definitely take the 35.
Though decision.
Posted 2 years ago # -
JY said:
Hi Studio460, my post was closed and linked to this tread. I wasn't looking into the super wide lense, more into wide to cover my focal length below the 70-200.If you want one lens to cover everything below 70mm, the logical answer is 70/2, which neatly lands at 35mm, one of your options.
35 is wide, but not limiting. There is some perspective distortion if it is used to shoot individuals at close range, but not nearly as much as if one used a 24. Besides, you have the 70-200 for head/shoulder shots.
Posted 2 years ago # -
JY said:
Hi Studio460, my post was closed and linked to this tread. I wasn't looking into the super wide lense, more into wide to cover my focal length below the 70-200.I think I am in between 24 and 35 (or 24-70 2.8 if I end up with zoom). The 24 1.4 seems to have a better built and optic quality while the 35 1.4 may be better as an all around lens in terms of focal length. Price are almost the same.
I normally will go for the better built quality, however I am not sure if I will like the focal length of the 24 1.4 when shooting other than landscape, i.e shooting people. If the built quality are exactly the same, I will definitely take the 35.
Though decision.
Hey there, JY:
You said it! It's a tough choice between the 24/1.4 and the 35/1.4. I'll initially likely go for the 24mm f/1.4 when I get an FX body, simply because I just love that focal length on a full-frame camera. If you keep your subjects from the extreme sides of the frame, you'll minimize any apparent barrel distortion.
However, the 35mm f/1.4 is possibly the most "useful" focal length on FX. Its photojournalistic heritage makes for an excellent focal length for a variety of situations. Again, the 35mm is yet another of my favorite focal lengths on FX. I likely won't be able to resist temptation, and will eventually buy both.
For me, personally, I don't like heavy lenses, and will eagerly sacrifice the perceived "convenience" of a wide zoom, for the weight and bulk savings a prime lens can offer. Plus, I'm much more comfortable composing to fixed-focal length lenses anyway. I like the discipline they incur in your vision. I really like "thinking" in specific focal lengths: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc.
As far as covering the "gap" between your wide-angle prime, and your 70-200mm zoom, I figure an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 would do that just fine.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.jpgPosted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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..
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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 :(
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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!
Posted 2 years ago # -
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...
Posted 2 years ago # -
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 shotsPosted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
