Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
Upgrading FX Wide Lens
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pforsell" data-source="post: 616036" data-attributes="member: 7240"><p>Hi, you obviously put a considerable amount of thought into this. Perhaps you'll let me waffle and ramble a bit? I won't comment on lenses that I've never used. </p><p></p><p>There's two different uses for lenses, IMHO. Either the "high-quality-no-nonsense-use", for example landscapes, which requires high sharpness and low distortion. Then there's the "lower-fidelity-but pictorially-interesting" use, which is at least as important to me. Here we can have strange bokeh, veiling glare, lens flares, lower sharpness and whatnot. These lenses often deliver more interesting images, perhaps because the mindset of the photographer is different!!</p><p></p><p><strong>Zooms</strong></p><p>The obvious candidate in wide angle category is the Nikkor AFS 14-24/2.8 which is a unicorn lens. A couple of my Canon friends use the lens with manual focus adapters on their 5DR. It's that good. The downsides are the size, weight and bulbous front element. Very high image quality. I don't use it as much as I should, though. </p><p></p><p>I also like the AFS 17-35/2.8 very much. It takes filters, especially polarizer. Not as good in the wide and as in the long, but stopped down still a very good in landscape use. The number one photojournalist lens for almost two decades. It's telling that the lens is still available new. My most used wide angle.</p><p></p><p>Nikon also has the 16-35/4 but I have never used it. Optically reportedly better than 17-35, but slow at f/4. My slowest lens is f/2.8 and I have no interest in this one. </p><p></p><p>Sigma has at least 3 versions of their 12-24 lens, but none of them is f/2.8 and I have had only bad experiences with Sigma autofocus. Therefore no comments.</p><p></p><p><strong>Primes</strong></p><p><strong></strong>You have a circular fisheye. Have you considered a diagonal fisheye? The Nikkor 16/2.8 is a fine lens, and the older manual focus AIS version is optically the same and a little bit cheaper. Please note, that defishing a diagonal fisheye delivers an image that has the same angle of view as a 16 or 17 mm rectilinear lens, so a rectilinear 14 mm would be much wider. I don't defish, because I like the fishy look and/or I use a fisheye in an environment where the fishyness is not obvious. Great fun factor.</p><p></p><p>Nikkor AFS 20/1.8 is small, light, fast and sharp. Great choice in low light, easily wide enough for landscapes and indoors use. Had it, but felt like I had too much overlap in the 16 to 28 mm area.</p><p></p><p>Nikkor AFS 24/1.4G. My second most used wide angle prime. Neutral no-nonsense performer, probably the best in class. Lack of temperament sometimes makes it feel boring. How's that for a lens review: so good that it's boring? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Nikkor AF 28/1.4D. Wide open this falls in the "pictorial" category because of undercorrected spherical aberrations and a quite pronounced veiling flare. Temperamental. Flatters the ladies though! Stopped down bitingly sharp all around lens and my most used lens. Will never sell it. My "normal" lens.</p><p></p><p>Nikkor AF 14/2.8D. This is a weird lens. Extremely overpriced, more expensive than 14-24/2.8. Out of production, and reasonably priced in the used market. Falls in the "pictorial" category. Nervous bokeh, very soft image borders and horrendous corners. Flares easily. Optically poor. And of course absolutely fabulous because of the shortcomings. And 14 mm rectilinear is a lot wider than a 17 mm rectilinear. Even wider than defished 16mm. Great fun factor, but I've sold mine.</p><p></p><p>Nikkor AIS 15/3.5 is a close relative to the 14/2.8 above. Much better bokeh though and sharper image borders. Great fun factor, but I've sold mine.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>The conclusion is that you can never have too many wide angle lenses. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I'm a little bit in the same boat as you, I'd like to have a fast ultra wide prime, something like 12mm f/2 or 14mm f/2 but currently nothing on the market checks all the boxes. There's manual focus lenses like Laowa 12/2.8, but I'd prefer AF as my eyesight is not getting any better. </p><p></p><p>And there's Sigma lenses, but I and Sigma have never been compatible. I cannot stand Sigma autofocus, which is too hesitant and stuttering and inaccurate for my tastes. I had both the 24/1.4 Art and 35/1.4 Art and but I've replaced both with Nikkor versions. If the subject is in good light and doesn't move, then Sigma AF is fine, IMHO. But so is manual focusing with LiveView also, and I need fast and accurate AF with moving subjects in less than perfect light (ballet, taekwondo). </p><p></p><p>Unfortunately I have had zero success with third party lenses. Subject choice and shooting conditions definitely play a role, but try before buy is my motto.</p><p></p><p>Good luck and let us know what you decided.</p><p></p><p>-Peter</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pforsell, post: 616036, member: 7240"] Hi, you obviously put a considerable amount of thought into this. Perhaps you'll let me waffle and ramble a bit? I won't comment on lenses that I've never used. There's two different uses for lenses, IMHO. Either the "high-quality-no-nonsense-use", for example landscapes, which requires high sharpness and low distortion. Then there's the "lower-fidelity-but pictorially-interesting" use, which is at least as important to me. Here we can have strange bokeh, veiling glare, lens flares, lower sharpness and whatnot. These lenses often deliver more interesting images, perhaps because the mindset of the photographer is different!! [B]Zooms[/B] The obvious candidate in wide angle category is the Nikkor AFS 14-24/2.8 which is a unicorn lens. A couple of my Canon friends use the lens with manual focus adapters on their 5DR. It's that good. The downsides are the size, weight and bulbous front element. Very high image quality. I don't use it as much as I should, though. I also like the AFS 17-35/2.8 very much. It takes filters, especially polarizer. Not as good in the wide and as in the long, but stopped down still a very good in landscape use. The number one photojournalist lens for almost two decades. It's telling that the lens is still available new. My most used wide angle. Nikon also has the 16-35/4 but I have never used it. Optically reportedly better than 17-35, but slow at f/4. My slowest lens is f/2.8 and I have no interest in this one. Sigma has at least 3 versions of their 12-24 lens, but none of them is f/2.8 and I have had only bad experiences with Sigma autofocus. Therefore no comments. [B]Primes [/B]You have a circular fisheye. Have you considered a diagonal fisheye? The Nikkor 16/2.8 is a fine lens, and the older manual focus AIS version is optically the same and a little bit cheaper. Please note, that defishing a diagonal fisheye delivers an image that has the same angle of view as a 16 or 17 mm rectilinear lens, so a rectilinear 14 mm would be much wider. I don't defish, because I like the fishy look and/or I use a fisheye in an environment where the fishyness is not obvious. Great fun factor. Nikkor AFS 20/1.8 is small, light, fast and sharp. Great choice in low light, easily wide enough for landscapes and indoors use. Had it, but felt like I had too much overlap in the 16 to 28 mm area. Nikkor AFS 24/1.4G. My second most used wide angle prime. Neutral no-nonsense performer, probably the best in class. Lack of temperament sometimes makes it feel boring. How's that for a lens review: so good that it's boring? :-) Nikkor AF 28/1.4D. Wide open this falls in the "pictorial" category because of undercorrected spherical aberrations and a quite pronounced veiling flare. Temperamental. Flatters the ladies though! Stopped down bitingly sharp all around lens and my most used lens. Will never sell it. My "normal" lens. Nikkor AF 14/2.8D. This is a weird lens. Extremely overpriced, more expensive than 14-24/2.8. Out of production, and reasonably priced in the used market. Falls in the "pictorial" category. Nervous bokeh, very soft image borders and horrendous corners. Flares easily. Optically poor. And of course absolutely fabulous because of the shortcomings. And 14 mm rectilinear is a lot wider than a 17 mm rectilinear. Even wider than defished 16mm. Great fun factor, but I've sold mine. Nikkor AIS 15/3.5 is a close relative to the 14/2.8 above. Much better bokeh though and sharper image borders. Great fun factor, but I've sold mine. [B] Conclusion[/B] The conclusion is that you can never have too many wide angle lenses. :-) I'm a little bit in the same boat as you, I'd like to have a fast ultra wide prime, something like 12mm f/2 or 14mm f/2 but currently nothing on the market checks all the boxes. There's manual focus lenses like Laowa 12/2.8, but I'd prefer AF as my eyesight is not getting any better. And there's Sigma lenses, but I and Sigma have never been compatible. I cannot stand Sigma autofocus, which is too hesitant and stuttering and inaccurate for my tastes. I had both the 24/1.4 Art and 35/1.4 Art and but I've replaced both with Nikkor versions. If the subject is in good light and doesn't move, then Sigma AF is fine, IMHO. But so is manual focusing with LiveView also, and I need fast and accurate AF with moving subjects in less than perfect light (ballet, taekwondo). Unfortunately I have had zero success with third party lenses. Subject choice and shooting conditions definitely play a role, but try before buy is my motto. Good luck and let us know what you decided. -Peter [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
Upgrading FX Wide Lens
Top