Nikon don't like FX Wide-angle users ???

G

Gladiator

Senior Member
I know I'm just venting but... But I'm not rich, having just bought a D700 (got a great deal) and now I'm looking for an extreme wide angle zoom (not fisheye) to go with it. Since i shoot a lot of landscapes.

Of course i cannot afford the 14-24mm f/2.8 IF ED $1750, so what does that leave me with? a BIG FAT NOTHING!!!

DX users have the:

Nikon 10-24mm AF-S f/3.5-4.5 G ED (DX)
Nikon 12-24mm AF-S f/4 (DX)
Tokina 11-16mm IF (DX)
Tokina 12-24 F/4 AF AT-X PRO (DX) II
Nikon 18-200mm VR and VRII (DX)

Are you starting to see a pattern here? Plus most of them are at a very reasonable price = less than 1000$

SO what I've learned by buying a full-frame body...
Nikon thinks we're all press photographers not paying for lenses and we're limited in lenses unless we go old school and we chase discontinued ones on eBay?!?!

I'm all for quality but DX looks pretty much appealing right now. Or that I should have bought a Canon 5D for half the D700's price, along with a 10-22mm zoom that blows everything else out of the water, including Nikon's 14-24mm (sorry Nikon) [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
My question is what's out there that will match full-frame quality, until i sell my first born and buy the 14-24mm?

And no i don't consider 28mm extreme wide angle...

Thanks for all tips and criticism lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

LensWork

Senior Member
It's funny that you make this statement (although probably not to you), but there was a thread not too long ago that asked why FX gets all the love from Nikon and what about DX.

But anyways to your question: there are a couple of current (1 "new" & 1 older model) Nikon brand wide-angle zooms that are less expensive than the 14-24mm:

AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR from Nikon $1109 at B&H

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED from Nikon
$610 at B&H
 
Last edited:
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
What about primes? You can pick up a Nikkor 20mm/f2.8 AF-D for a very reasonable price. The 16mm Fisheye might be another choice.

To be blunt, I don't think you can blame Nikon if you can't afford a particular lens. Part of the selection criteria for a body should always be what glass you plan on using.
 
J

Joseph Bautsch

New member
One of the very big drawbacks to the FX format is that the camera itself has to be larger and consequently heaver. The lenses not only have to be much bigger in diameter but much longer. No one really wants to carry around that much extra weight for not much gain in picture quality. Until technology catches FX format up with DX size and weight, DX will be with us for a very long time. I really don't see much relief anytime in the near future from the cost of using the FX format.
 
C

cal41

New member
It seems like the FX format doesn't have as much selection until you realize what the equivalent focal lengths are.

A 14mm focal length in FX would be 9mm in DX, which doesn't exist at any price. At focal lengths this short, one millimeter means a lot.

18mm DX is no big deal for FX, any old 28-80mm kit lens goes just as wide. So any lens less than 28mm is wider than most DX lenses. How many full-frame lenses have less than a 28mm focal length? A lot!
 
L

LensWork

Senior Member
Gladiator said:
Or that i should have bought a Canon 5D for half the D700's price, along with a 10-22mm zoom that blows everything else out of the water including Nikon's 14-24mm (sorry Nikon)
Click to expand...

Yes, you could buy a used 5D for half the price of a D700, but the Canon EF-S 10-22mm won't even work on the 5D (the EF-S lenses are Canon's equivalent to Nikon's DX) , so your comparison is not valid. Perhaps you meant the 50D? On a 50D, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 has an equivalent focal length of 16-35mm on full-frame. If your "blows everything else out of the water including Nikon's 14-24mm" reference was because you believed that the shorter focal length of the 10-22mm would give you a much wider angle of view than the Nikon 14-24mm, sorry but the 14-24mm has a wider angle of view on a D700 than the 10-22mm does on a 50D.
 
Last edited:
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
cal41 said:
A 14mm focal length in FX would be 9mm in DX, which doesn't exist at any price. At focal lengths this short, one millimeter means a lot.
Click to expand...

Actually, Sigma has an 8-16mm for DX which is mighty darn intriguing. More info: 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM - Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

203_8-16mm_f45-56_DC_HSM.png
 
Last edited:
G

Gladiator

Senior Member
LensWork said:
If your "blows everything else out of the water including Nikon's 14-24mm" reference was because you believed that the shorter focal length of the 10-22mm would give you a much wider angle of view than the Nikon 14-24mm, sorry but the 14-24mm has a wider angle of view on a D700 than the 10-22mm does on a 50D.
Click to expand...
Maybe blows out of the water was too much but it seems like from tests this guy did it has less distortion than the 14-24mm.
Canon 10-22mm
 
V

vertrider

New member
Joseph Bautsch said:
One of the very big drawbacks to the FX format is that the camera itself has to be larger and consequently heaver. The lenses not only have to be much bigger in diameter but much longer. No one really wants to carry around that much extra weight for not much gain in picture quality. Until technology catches FX format up with DX size and weight, DX will be with us for a very long time. I really don't see much relief anytime in the near future from the cost of using the FX format.
Click to expand...

hi joseph, until now the signal to noise ratio on FX was much better on low light due to the lower pixel density. the D700 is a good example. however, each year they get better results with DX, and the D7000 is amazingly catching up with the D700 on hot pixels and noise... as far as I can see, the D7000 feels very comfortable around ISO 800 to 1600, much better than D300(s).

I've shot this astro timelapse movie with both D700 and 7000 as well as other bodies and really like the D7000. however from 1600 up still nothing beats the D700, its a low light legend on its own.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic...tain-timelapse-a-soundgarden-of-night-lights/

cheers
chris
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
vertrider said:
I've shot this astro timelapse movie with both D700 and 7000 as well as other bodies and really like the D7000. however from 1600 up still nothing beats the D700, its a low light legend on its own.

New Mountain Timelapse: A [Sound]Garden of Night Lights – National Geographic News Watch

cheers
chris
Click to expand...

Thanks Christoph, I've watched your time lapse and am very impressed by the amount of work that went into it. I find the result very impressive and I admire your perseverance to undertake such a huge project.
I'm sure there were a few sleepless nights that went into it.
Kudos my friend.
 
V

vertrider

New member
hello marcel, my wife and me were very very happy about our little daughter that was born in feb last year. that is where I really got used to sleepless nights. and sometimes as a man you just can't help the wife anyway, and that was when I went out to take some footage.

today we really look forward to the day when she can join us with the tent to witness some starry nights in the mountains. the stars images appeal to speak a common language which is immediately recognized by kids.

about the work... well, when I finally switched from film to dslr with the d100 (my loved F5 got stolen after a bicycle trade show report in milano that year) I soon realized that long hours sitting over slide sheets was forever changed to sitting long hours in front of a screen.

so, hours of working on TL footage is nothing new, but new is that at least for the final renders you can leave the machine alone during nighttime ;) and head out taking new footage.

OTH when all bodies are setup and running, you can finally take a nap in the sleeping bag, or gaze the nightsky. until the first raindrops hit your nose ;)

cheers
chris
 
V

Vermontster

New member
Awesome stuff there Chris, just beautiful. The only detriment is the light pollution, which is even catching up to us here in the outlying rural areas as well. Look forward to seeing your work in the future. Thanks for sharing!!!
 
Johnathan Aulabaugh

Johnathan Aulabaugh

Senior Member
Gladiator said:
Maybe blows out of the water was too much but it seems like from tests this guy did it has less distortion than the 14-24mm.
Canon 10-22mm
Click to expand...

Oh please don't quote Ken Rockwell this is the same guy that tells people to save their money and buy a D40. He himself says that many of his "tests" are over exaggerated. He is so full of garbage that Photo.net banned the use of his name. He is a true legend in his own mind... he even compares his website to the "The Onion" . If you want real reviews, go to DpReview or forums with avid users of the products
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Just to stay on topic: I think you've already noticed the wider field of view of the D700 which means going really wide is really not necessary. My first wide angle lens was a used Nikon 20-35mm f2.8D which I bought for less than $500. You can buy a lot of used lenses on some of the forums at a much cheaper price. I think 24mm is reasonably wide for group shots. I have plenty of wide angle lens since I like shooting landscapes. The 24-120mm f4 is a good walk-around lens which cost a lot less than the 24-70mm f2.8. The 16-35mm f4 is not bad and is really wide at 16mm. You were asking for more trouble by getting the D700 since that is just one of the first step in this never ending expenditures. Good luck and I hope you'll find the cure.

Nikon_gears_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
W

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Go prime. A dependent upon what you are looking to do, yoou might be able to start out with manual focus lenses, some of which are superb optically.

WM
 
Top