Finally getting an FX Nikon... need new wide-angle

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Shacklebolt, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. Shacklebolt macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #1
    So my lenses are 24-70, and 70-200... need a wide angle, but very torn.

    Boy, I wish Nikon made a 16-35 f/2.8. Oh well.

    Anyway, what's the ideal Nikon wide-angle to go with a D700? the 17-35 f/2.8? or The 14-24? Or something else?

    I've used the 14-24 in the past, and I certainly like it, but I'm not wild about being permanently stuck w/a fisheye-type, non-filterable lens.

    Any thoughts are most welcome. I shoot mostly concerts, but I plan to use it for landscape/travel photography at some point.
     
  2. cosmokanga2 macrumors 6502a

    cosmokanga2

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Canada, where we live in igloos.
    #2
    I've used the 14-24 and it is the widest non-fisheye wide angle lens that Nikon makes. It is possible to put a filer on using the Lee filter system however the set-up is not practical for fast moving photography. Landscape it looks great though.

    Also the front element is exposed so if your line of work includes the high possibility of damage to the element, fixing it could be expensive. That said though, how many other photographers are going to have a 14mm non-fisheye lens with them.

    Personally I'll be getting the 14-24mm when I upgrade to the FX because it is a great lens and I'm a sucker for wide shots.
     
  3. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #3
    There are lots of Canon people using the Nikon 14-24 on their 5Ds!
     
  4. Shacklebolt thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #4
    Wow. Hmmmm..... maybe that's the one then.
     
  5. CK Williams macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Atlanta, GA USA
    #5
    The 16-35 f/4 works very well with the D700. Use the auto-ISO setting and you'll never miss the one stop difference. Also, it uses 77mm filters like the 24-70 and 70-200.
     
  6. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #6
    ??? I understand that 1mm can be meaningful, especially at the wider end- but Nikon does make the 17-35 f2.8 which is almost exactly what you are looking for?

    Anyways the 14-24 is universally praised and with good reason. It might not be outrageous to pick up a 14-24 now for the concerts, and the 16-35 f/4 for the landscapes later on- after the bank account has recovered?
     
  7. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #7
    Well it all depends how far you want to zoom in.
    I just had a 14-24 on loan fro a friend and its probably the best ultra wide angle lens I have worked with from Nikon or anyone else. BUT its also damn expensive. I have tested the 16-35 VR f4 and I have to say, I will most likely get that. The F4 is easily compensated by a) the VR and b) the nano coating and crispness of the results. The 17-35 f2.8 is not Nano coated and has no VR and it is 1mm less viewing angle. The other thing I have to add is that the 16-355mm shows, in my opinion, much less distortion than the 17-35.

    Anyway if you want REALLY wide you could always look at the Sigma 12-24mm. Great reviews and even wider than Nikon's offering.
     
  8. kuaiyouming, Jun 28, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
  9. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #9
    Which is, AFAIK, a DX lens not a FX lens..
     
  10. kuaiyouming, Jun 29, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
  11. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #11
    I would suggest that the main reason is that it's a fisheye.

    What exactly is wrong with the 16-35 f/4?
     
  12. Shacklebolt thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #12
    "Almost" being the operative word - you're absolutely right, at the wide end 1mm is meaningful, and having it open to 16mm would make sacrificing the 14-15 a little bit easier.

    Regarding why not the f/4, I shoot concerts w/crappy lighting, so would like the f/2.8.
     
  13. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #13
    The difference between 16 and 17mm on an FX body is about 4 degrees in the horizontal FOV (96.7 vs 93.3). If that matters a lot to you, then I guess it matters. But I feel that you're making a bigger deal of it than it really would be.

    I don't have experience with concerts, but from what I have done of indoor shooting, if these concerts have crappy lighting, it is likely that even f2.8 is going to be inadequate- despite with the high ISO of a FX body, unless perhaps you're also getting the D3s. Maybe you need to look at the 24mm f1.4- not as wide as you'd like but it has the speed you're probably going to need.

    Ruahrc
     
  14. ManhattanPrjct macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #14
    I am not sure where you are going to be standing at these concerts, but unless you plan to be in your subject's face with a 14-24, wouldn't something with a little more range be more practical?

    14-24mm is similar to a DX 11-16mm (which I have) and the "zoom" is useless on that lens. You really have to be in the right place to use that lens. Just my $0.02 from somebody who knows nothing about concerts.

    PS: for travel photography, I'd definitely want the 16-35 VR.
     
  15. Shacklebolt thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #15
    Yeah, I just wish that the 16-35 were a bit faster - also, I've read some dodgy things about distortion wide open. The 14-24 is definitely a "specialty" lens, so I'm shying away from it in favor of perhaps the 17-35 f/2.8. I'm just trying to find Nikon's effectively fastest super-wide.
     
  16. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #16
    You may want to shoot with your 24-70 for a while before you jump into anything else. I find myself around 35mm pretty often with my D3x for landscapes, and I stitch if the wind cooperates if I need wider, because otherwise I tend to have way too much sky.

    Paul
     
  17. Shacklebolt thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #17
    Ha - well if that's the route I pursue, I might as well just sell my D300, and use the money I save on the lens to buy the D3s instead. :D

    (Only <24mm I have right now is a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DX).
     
  18. mdatwood macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #18
    If you're looking for UW then the Nikon 14-24 is pretty much the best lens there is. I've read some reviews that play around with saying it's one of the best lenses ever made.

    I've used a friends 14-24 (waaay too expensive for me :) ), and it does take great pics. I will say though that framing shots with an UW is a skill different from any other type of lens. My mindset changes from what can I fit in this shot to how can I get rid of all this other stuff.
     
  19. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #19
    If I were you, I'd very seriously consider it. The D3s will shoot in ~1/4 the light of the D700. You might want to rent a D3s for a few days and try it out- both for the high-ISO and for the 24-70mm.

    The only time I've pulled my 20-35mm out in the last three months has been when I've needed to shoot close to a building or when I've set it at 35mm- in which case my 35-70 was good enough. If I shot a lot of "mountains in the distance with lots of interesting foreground" type landscapes, then I could see going to 20mm, but I think I'd probably just stitch those too if it wasn't too windy.

    I'd love to have a D3s for the creative possibilities that the high-ISO capabilities open up. I wouldn't trade my D3x for one though!

    Remember, that 24-70@24mm on FX is going to look like 16mm does on your D300- iow wider than your current widest lens.

    If you really have a bad case of NAS, then I'd suggest a 300/4.

    Paul
     

Share This Page