14-24mm lens alternatives

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
I am looking for an alternative to the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 lens. I shoot mostly landscapes and Astrophotography and really like this lens except for two things about it. First the price and second the fact that you can't use a filter with it. I am currently using a 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G with my D610 with good results but want to take another step up. I also use a 28-300mm 3.5-5.6G and occasionally a 55mm 1.8. Any ideas and other brand recommendations would be appreciated.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Both the New Nikon 18-35g and the 16-35 f4 are excellent. The 18-35g price/quality is excellent and it is extremely light.
 

aroy

Senior Member
I am looking for an alternative to the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 lens. I shoot mostly landscapes and Astrophotography and really like this lens except for two things about it. First the price and second the fact that you can't use a filter with it. I am currently using a 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G with my D610 with good results but want to take another step up. I also use a 28-300mm 3.5-5.6G and occasionally a 55mm 1.8. Any ideas and other brand recommendations would be appreciated.

You have to decide if you really need F2.8. If you can double the exposure times, then an F4 lense would be sensibly priced. Look up older lenses, especially manual focus AIS lense in reviews and decide what fits you best. Look for uniform sharpness and low/no distortion across the field.

If you do not require 14mm, then there are quite a few versions of 20mm, 24mm and 28mm lenses.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
If you're looking mostly for landscapes then you're likely not going to be worrying about High ISO noise and minimal DoF. And even so, with the D610 you've got one of the best low light sensors out there. Speaking from personal experience, I went with the 16-35mm f/4. Other forum members who have (or have had) both posted images from each and the difference in IQ is indistinguishable on the 1000px here, even at 100% crop. Maybe a little more CA in the corners. The nice thing is, I've got a flat front element on the 16-35mm, so screwing on a 10-stop ND takes seconds and I can leave the lens on. I also love the fact that they put VR on it, because sometimes when the light is low and right you want to make sure that your shot at 1/8 sec and ISO 100 has a shot of being crisp because you forgot your tripod.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
The 16-35 f4 is on sale this week only for Nikon's fathers Day special. I believe it's only $999, which is a fantastic price for the pro build and quality.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
I see you have only posted 3 times so let me welcome you to Nikonites.....and I do favor the 14-24 but mainly because it's the best wide angle zoom that Nikon makes.
 

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
I see you have only posted 3 times so let me welcome you to Nikonites.....and I do favor the 14-24 but mainly because it's the best wide angle zoom that Nikon makes.
B

thanks for the welcome! I am new to this site but have been involved in photography most of my 58 years. I kind of got away from it while the kids were growing up but have gotten back in I the last five years or so. I shot with a Minolta XD11 back in the film days. Couldn't afford a Nikon then. Back to the lens, do you miss the filter capability? I could see the need when doing daylight long exposures and mid day polarizing.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
B

thanks for the welcome! I am new to this site but have been involved in photography most of my 58 years. I kind of got away from it while the kids were growing up but have gotten back in I the last five years or so. I shot with a Minolta XD11 back in the film days. Couldn't afford a Nikon then. Back to the lens, do you miss the filter capability? I could see the need when doing daylight long exposures and mid day polarizing.

Don't miss the filter at all....check out my photos from the Wilmington Car Show in the automotive section. They were all taken in early afternoon with the 14-24. I think I got some high IQ photos that day. It was very sunny...colors were vibrant. If you need help finding the thread let me know....glad to help.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
May or may not interest you but when I wanted to add a wide angel without spending a lot I found a Tamron SP 20-40 and bought it used for $144 at KEH.com. Working for me.

https://flic.kr/p/nNmueb links to a set of images taken with that lens.

On Flickr there is a group dedicated to that lens: https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron_af_20-40/

Not into night photography so no idea how well it would do there. But I figure it was a cheap enough way to try out wide angel lenses to see if I like them. (and they are fun to create interesting effects).

I was looking at the Sigma 10-20 and given range would compliment my 20-40 nicely. Give that a look too.

We can't all afford to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on lenses.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I loved my Sigma 10-20 when I was shooting DX too FKD. Photohiker is shooting FX though.

I had the same dilemma when I moved to FX. I mostly shoot landscapes so I wasn't as concerned with a fast lens. With the D800 I can bump ISO if required so I traded speed to go a little wider and bought the Sigma 12-24. I will admit that my positive 6 year experience with the Sigma 10-20 was a major contributing factor. For my needs, I've been very pleased. (I posted a recent shot from Hawaii taken with the 12-24 here.)

The other thing to consider is a Rokinon / Bower 14mm f2.8. They are manual focus but will control aperture. I initially bought one due to the price (~ US$300). Very nice lens but I realized for my needs the zoom was more appropriate. I'm torn on whether to keep it for the rare instances I might need speed but am afraid it will mostly sit because of the Sigma.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Yes, I forgot that the Sigma as DC (siggy speak for DX) - it had been on my list, I remember now that was because at 10-20 on a FX it is about a 20-40 same as my Tamron. I also looked at the Rokinon 14mm - good to know it is a good lens - i might still look at that to add some width to my wide angel options.
 

Felisek

Senior Member
If you need a f2.8 lens and don't need the 14-17 mm range very much, you can try Sigma 17-50 f2.8. I've been using it for a few months now and it is very sharp even fully open. It is also very reasonably priced.

Edit: only now I noticed that you have D610 and this is DX-only lens. Sorry, should have read your post more carefuly!
 
Last edited:
Top