Opinions on these lenses (Nikon)

[hmp1]

I recently sold my D3000 and 35mm f/1.8 and am going to buy a D7000 this weekend. I was looking at lenses and wanted to know your guys opinion on them:

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens
and maybe a 50mm f/1.8

 

[luminosity]

If you're asking for people's opinions on the 14-24, I suggest rethinking any purchases you want to make and doing some major research beforehand.

The greatness of the 14-24 is common knowledge. Only one lens truly rivals it, and that's the Zeiss 21/2.8. Other than that, it is without peer as a fast wide angle lens.

 

[compuwar]

To shoot what under what conditions with what budget?

Paul

 

[ashman70]

The 14-24 is a FX lens not to mention it costs almost two grand, so yeah, its a great piece of glass, but it belongs on an FX body. The 16-85 is a nice lens, I owned it once upon a time but must have had a bad copy because it didn't impress me and I sold it. Choosing a lens without knowing what you shoot is kind of hard. Do you prefer zooms over primes? On the short end the 16-85 is nice, a 50mm of any flavor is nice, on the long end I own and love the 70-300VR which is nice an sharp and very versatile. Enjoy your D7000, I am still rocking the D300.

 

[luminosity]

The 14-24 is a FX lens not to mention it costs almost two grand, so yeah, its a great piece of glass, but it belongs on an FX body.

My mentor shoots with a D300 and uses a 14-24. Of course, he knows what he's doing.

 

[compuwar]

The 14-24 is a FX lens not to mention it costs almost two grand, so yeah, its a great piece of glass, but it belongs on an FX body.

It's extremely close in AOV to the 20-35 on DX, a lens that is very handy and of course on DX it'll be the sweet spot of the lens- I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it on either FX or DX.

Paul

 

[ashman70]

I'm not saying you can't use it on a DX body, of course you can, but then it will be a 21-36mm lens. Don't know how you can compare it to the 20-35 which is DX lens, the FX lens would work differently on a DX body because of the cropped sensor, wouldn't it?

 

[Ryan1524]

I'd recommend getting the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and the 35 f2 or 50 f2.8 if you're going to be staying with DX for a while. Or put the money you saved into a 35 f1.4 or 85 f1.4.

The Tokina is an amazing lens in its own right, especially if you don't absolutely NEED the 14-24's weather sealing and/or planning to move to FX anytime soon. To be honest, you're wasting money and good glass if you put the 14-24 on a DX body. You'll be carrying around the weight for nothing, since you're only using a small percentage of the glass.

 

[compuwar]

I'm not saying you can't use it on a DX body, of course you can, but then it will be a 21-36mm lens. Don't know how you can compare it to the 20-35 which is DX lens, the FX lens would work differently on a DX body because of the cropped sensor, wouldn't it?

Actually, the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D is an older FX lens which I use fairly often. Nikon doesn't make a 20-35mm DX lens. Since I happily use the 20-35mm on my D3x, I'd find the same angle of view on a DX body ultimately useful as well.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

I'd recommend getting the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and the 35 f2 or 50 f2.8 if you're going to be staying with DX for a while. Or put the money you saved into a 35 f1.4 or 85 f1.4.

The Tokina is an amazing lens in its own right, especially if you don't absolutely NEED the 14-24's weather sealing and/or planning to move to FX anytime soon. To be honest, you're wasting money and good glass if you put the 14-24 on a DX body. You'll be carrying around the weight for nothing, since you're only using a small percentage of the glass.

The 11.16 has a completely different AOV and different distortion. The only real alternative is the 12-24mm DX, which is a stop slower and not quite as good in terms of resolution at either the wide or telephoto end as you get towards the edge of the frame (optically, they're about the same overall, but since the FX lens would be using the DX sweet spot, it wins in terms of resolution as you get away from the center.) As far as "anytime soon" goes, I think *most* of my lenses are >10 years old- good glass lasts. The extra stop between the 12-24DX and 14-24FX costs $700 at MSRP- if you assume a minimum of 10 years, that's $5.83/month cost difference to have a lens that's twice as fast and sharper. Only the OP can say if that and the actual AOV are important to them or not.

Paul

 

[Ryan1524]

Yes, the Tokina has more distortion, but it's easily fixable, and it's very sharp everywhere. At nearly half the price and half the size and weight, I'd say this is a worthwhile compromise. (unless AF-S and weather sealing is a must) If it's width OP's looking for, the Tokina will actually serve him better.

How do you figure twice as fast? They're both f2.8.

Based on my research when I was choosing my own wide angle, the 12-24 f4 loses to the Tokina in multiple areas. Hence why I recommended the Tokina and completely sidestepped the 12-24.

 

[compuwar]

Yes, the Tokina has more distortion, but it's easily fixable, and it's very sharp everywhere. At nearly half the price and half the size and weight, I'd say this is a worthwhile compromise. (unless AF-S and weather sealing is a must) If it's width OP's looking for, the Tokina will actually serve him better.

How do you figure twice as fast? They're both f2.8.

Based on my research when I was choosing my own wide angle, the 12-24 f4 loses to the Tokina in multiple areas. Hence why I recommended the Tokina and completely sidestepped the 12-24.

Twice as fast as the 12-24, which covers the same AOV as the 14-24, the Tokina doesn't cover the same AOV and therefore isn't a good substitute.

The 11-16 is a great lens for its AOV, but it's not a good substitute for the AOV of a 20-35mm lens at all.

Personally, I find that anything wider than a 20mm AOV on FX simply doesn't get much use- I wish Nikon had updated the 20-35mm for FX, but the 14-24/24-70 combo is a good alternative to the old 20-35/35-70 combo- I find that if I need wider than 20mm, I'm more likely to do a stitch of vertical shots because everything I shoot in that range would generally be too small and lack critical detail shot with a wider lens.

I don't think I've put my Sigma 10-20mm on a camera body in about a year and a half, and that was to shoot some real-estate where I simply didn't have room to shoot anything narrower. The 11-16 is a better alternative to a super-wide like the 10-20mm and even a good alternative to a 14mm prime or de-fished 10.5mm- but that's generally going to be used for different subjects than something with an AOV stat starts at 20mm.

Paul

 

[khollister]

Been shooting Nikon for over 25 years, so here's my thoughts ...

Considering your suspected level of experience and not going to FX any time soon, I would definitely NOT recommend the 14-24. You are paying a huge premium for ultra-wide performance on FX. You can do quite well on DX with a number of much cheaper alternatives.

The "usual suspects" for wide angle zooms on DX are

• Nikon 12-24 or 10-24 - both very good, a little pricy and not currently available at reasonable prices
• Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - very good and pretty cheap ($430 new)
• Sigma 8-16 f4-5.6 - excellent and VERY wide ($700 new) This is what I'm using
• Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - fast, but had a rep of focus issues a while back and not the sharpest wide open. I returned one for severe back-focus issues on my D7000
• Tokina 12-24 f4 - good rep, not personally familiar with this lens

Bear in mind that unlike longer focal lengths, most people will not shoot an ultra wide at large apertures due to the normal use (landscapes, interiors, etc) where a large DOF is wanted, so an F2.8 or even f4 lens is not as much of a selling point to many. YMMV

As you seem to be pretty new to this, I would recommend the Sigma 10-20 a very good, inexpensive UWA zoom to start with.

For mid-range zooms:

• Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 - fantastic optics and available used/reconditioned for about $200. A great DX lens that many assume is just another kit lens.
• Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 HSM OS macro - very versatile, not super sharp wide open, cheap
• Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - there are several versions of this lens - you want the older one WITHOUT the built-in motor. THe optics are better.
• Nikon 16-85 VR - very sharp lens (previous poster's experience is not normal), but pricy and kind of slow
• Nikon 18-105 VR - the normal D7000 kit lens. Actually pretty good, not quite the equal of the 16-85 or the old 18-70

I would pick up a used or reconditioned 18-70 - great lens cheap.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'd recommend getting the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and the 35 f2 or 50 f2.8 if you're going to be staying with DX for a while. Or put the money you saved into a 35 f1.4 or 85 f1.4.

The Tokina is an amazing lens in its own right, especially if you don't absolutely NEED the 14-24's weather sealing and/or planning to move to FX anytime soon. To be honest, you're wasting money and good glass if you put the 14-24 on a DX body. You'll be carrying around the weight for nothing, since you're only using a small percentage of the glass.

You said what I was going too

 

[macjube]

The Nikon 14-24mm is practically distortion-free on DX bodies

To be honest, you're wasting money and good glass if you put the 14-24 on a DX body.

I bought the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom for my D300s, as I do plan to go to an FX body in the future. And I was very pleasantly surprised – it's practically distortion-free throughout the zoom range! My Nikon 18-200mm DX zoom gives wickedly curved walls on indoor shots at 18mm, and the 14-24 gives nice straight walls at 14mm.

It seems that the bulk of the 14-24mm's distortion lies outside the DX sensor, so when mounting it on a DX camera, the result is about as close to optical perfection as you'll ever get. And bear in mind the incredible sharpness too, right out to the very corners of the DX frame.

So if you have the budget and don't mind hauling the beast around, I'd certainly recommend the 14-24mm for any Nikon DX camera.

 

[Vudoo]

I own the 14-24mm f/2.8 and it's a great lens, but I also shoot it on the D700. You will get the sweet spot and no distortion on a crop sensor, but that's a heavy premium you are paying for a 21-36mm view.

I would spend the money towards the 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 which works great on both DX and FX and pick up the 14-24mm f/2.8 when you go full frame.