Before I changecd to a FF body, I used the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 maybe more than any other lens; for landsacapes, monuments, architechture, travelling, what have you. At present I have nothing wider than my 24-70 and sorely miss the last 10 degrees of angle. My choice comes down to the 3 lenses mentioned above; the Nikon 14mm, 14-24mm f2.8 or the 16-35mm F4. The 14-24 takes no filters, but has outstanding piqué. What say you? Have I overlooked a lens out there? I should appreciate your opinions and experience!
Why is the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 excluded? It is at least as comparably good as the 16-35mm f4. I have the 16-35mm f4 and I like it. But I see that it does not get a good score here on D3x.
Frank
The 14-24mm f2.8 is sharp, but it has its very own drawbacks too. You mentioned the "no filters" yourself, which of course only is a problem if one actually wants to use any filter on a wide angle.
But it is expensive and heavy, and it has more than average barrel distortion. "correcting" the distortion will decrease resolution. And then there is its problem that it loves to catch lights (like the sun) what are out of its filed of view and produce flares.
Avoiding that will then mean you see the shadow of the photographer in the frame.
The 16-35mm f4 VR has very high barrel distortion for its type too, but for the rest it seems to be an ok wide angle. Very heavy for an f4 lens. The 17-35mm f2.8 has a bit less barrel distortion.
Worthwhile 3rd party considerations:
Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, but only when you can test the lens sample at the store (to check if it is put together correctly). Much more affordable, and 16mm is already crazy wide.
Tokina 19-35mm. Out of production, but should still be findable. Crazy affordable (under 150 euros), and sharp when stopped down. 19mm = comparable to 12.7mm on APS-C.
You keep on buying equipment, but I would like to see some of your results too.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303214272' post='7761']
The 14-24mm f2.8 is sharp, but it has its very own drawbacks too. You mentioned the "no filters" yourself, which of course only is a problem if one actually wants to use any filter on a wide angle.
But it is expensive and heavy, and it has more than average barrel distortion. "correcting" the distortion will decrease resolution. And then there is its problem that it loves to catch lights (like the sun) what are out of its filed of view and produce flares.
Avoiding that will then mean you see the shadow of the photographer in the frame.
The 16-35mm f4 VR has very high barrel distortion for its type too, but for the rest it seems to be an ok wide angle. Very heavy for an f4 lens. The 17-35mm f2.8 has a bit less barrel distortion.
Worthwhile 3rd party considerations:
Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, but only when you can test the lens sample at the store (to check if it is put together correctly). Much more affordable, and 16mm is already crazy wide.
Tokina 19-35mm. Out of production, but should still be findable. Crazy affordable (under 150 euros), and sharp when stopped down. 19mm = comparable to 12.7mm on APS-C.
You keep on buying equipment, but I would like to see some of your results too.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
I am too timid to show my humble efforts at photography in a forum <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> , maybe one day or tomorrow!
My vote goes towards the 14-24. I was a happy user of this one, and it worked brilliantly for me. Unfortunately it got damaged after I slipped on ice.. But I think that propensity to flare is overrated with this lens. In fact, as to flare and ghosting it never has bothered me in practical use, and the resolution contrast and colour rendition are simply awesome with this lens. Now I'm saving some funds for the repair bill, and I'll be putting the 16-35 f4 on sale.. while it's not bad at all, it's no match for the 14-24 optically (imho) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303214272' post='7761']
You keep on buying equipment, but I would like to see some of your results too.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
That's a really positive comment, BC - good to see.
VL: I'm not able to comment on other aspects of this. I'm in a similar place myself re posting my pics, but I plan to do that more as I learn, and as part of the learning - seems like the forum and people here are good to get constructive feedback from.
Ian
Hi VL!
I'd recommend the 14-24 without any hesitation. It is very, very good. I used one for a while on my 5D II with a G-EOS adapter. The only reason I sold it on was because I got my TS-E 17, and that just is a little easier to use on a Canon camera (and slightly better <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />).
But it is a world class lens, nothing bad can really be said about it. If I shot Nikon I wouldn't think twice.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
The new sigma 12-24 MK II
- Promissing optics - SLD and FLD glass
- Good BQ it has splash proof cap. I like the new sigma finish.
- reasonable price - 300$ more than MK1.
- it must be available april 2011.
However if I'm in nikonland and I have the budget for 14-24 I'l buy it, even If I know that i'll break this lens.
I'm outdoor photogrpaher - slippery rocks in waterfalls , snow and tripod mount. I knew one day this setup will fall down.
BTW: Do you have any weight requirement. Last mounts you have collected a lot of gear
Thank you all for your good advice. No Miro, I have no weight limitation, but I seldom leave home with more than 2 or 3 lenses in my bag <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> ! I generally more or less know what I am going to do; if I shoot macro, it mostly is in my garden. If I do portraits inside, I bring 2 max 3 lenses. If I travel, the same. At the moment, I have one lens too many; the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro, which is a brilliant lens, but my Nikkor 105 is more useful for the kind of macro work I do. Otherwise my Tamron covers all the tele work I do (and long portraits brilliantly). If I were to get rid of something else, it would be the 24-70. More and more I use primes for those focal ranges. So easy to take one step back and be in 24mm land or one step forward and be in 70mm range. The primes are faster, lighter and less conspiquous.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1303265849' post='7779']
Hi VL!
I'd recommend the 14-24 without any hesitation. It is very, very good. I used one for a while on my 5D II with a G-EOS adapter. The only reason I sold it on was because I got my TS-E 17, and that just is a little easier to use on a Canon camera (and slightly better <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />).
But it is a world class lens, nothing bad can really be said about it. If I shot Nikon I wouldn't think twice.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
Hello Wim,
So what about the Nikon 14mm? It is not small or light. Or the Samyang 14mm, which just got a brilliant review in Chasseur d'Images! 389€ of excellence, but for the AF, but I guess it's hyperfocal at f11. And anyways, landscapes and buildings tend to not move so fast. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> You say that you have switched to the 17mm yourself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> ?? I know the 14-24 is an outstanding lens, maybe best in class, bar none, but it is so big and heavy! I guess the fact the 14mm costs just as much as the zoom is a factor to reckon with if you choose Nikon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> , but the Samyang has to be an interesting alternative!! Check the results of the test with DXO in the May issue of Chasseur d'Images.
|
