What are my options?

T

traceyjj

Senior Member
Currently own a D800 and a 28-300 zoom.
I am looking for a wider angle than I currently get on my current set-up. (When I shot Olympus I owned a 9-18 lens - 18-36fx equivalent, and loved the lens).

What makes/models are available for an ultra-wide zoom lens for the fx? and I would like first hand knowledge/experiences with the lenses if you have used one please.

Many thanks in advance.
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I have the 14-24 2.8 and it's awesome. Super edge to edge sharpness. I don't use it as much as the 24-70, but when I do, I get very interesting results, especially if I shoot something up close and personal. Here's a landscape shot from last month's trout trip.

JFS_1442.jpg
 
F

FastGlass

Senior Member
^^^^ absolutely. Love the lens. Only Issue I have with it is that if wanting to put a filter on the front you need to invest in a specialized setup for it. With all the filters I have for the other lens's, none of them will work on this lens:(
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
traceyjj said:
Currently own a D800 and a 28-300 zoom.
I am looking for a wider angle than I currently get on my current set-up. (When I shot Olympus I owned a 9-18 lens - 18-36fx equivalent, and loved the lens).
Click to expand...

The Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G is probably the closest lens to what you owned for your Olympus. It doesn't have any VR so if that is something you need, then this lens isn't it. There is a previous version of this lens, too (the 'D' version), but it isn't nearly as good as this one. This lens accepts front filters which I wanted.

I also own the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 prime. It too is excellent; however, it doesn't have VR and doesn't accept a front filter if those are factors you need/want.

Both of these are FX lenses. Another criteria for me is due to forearm tendonitis, the weight of the lens is a factor. Both of these are light enough to not cause any problems. Both take excellent photos.
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
hark said:
The Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G is probably the closest lens to what you owned for your Olympus. It doesn't have any VR so if that is something you need, then this lens isn't it. There is a previous version of this lens, too (the 'D' version), but it isn't nearly as good as this one. This lens accepts front filters which I wanted.

I also own the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 prime. It too is excellent; however, it doesn't have VR and doesn't accept a front filter if those are factors you need/want.

Both of these are FX lenses. Another criteria for me is due to forearm tendonitis, the weight of the lens is a factor. Both of these are light enough to not cause any problems. Both take excellent photos.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this information. I would prefer a lens that allowed me to use filters.
Lack of VR is not a deal breaker for me as I rarely have it on on the 28-300
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
singlerosa said:
I have the 14-24 2.8 and it's awesome. Super edge to edge sharpness. I don't use it as much as the 24-70, but when I do, I get very interesting results, especially if I shoot something up close and personal. Here's a landscape shot from last month's trout trip.

View attachment 123763
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Not sure this would be the lens for me (which is a damn shame) as I just read below that it doesnt accept "normal" filters and I tend to like a filter on my lens :(
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
What about other manufacturers? On my D5100 I had a Sigma 17-70 which was a fantastic lens.. are 3rd party lenses no good at this focal length?
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
traceyjj said:
What about other manufacturers? On my D5100 I had a Sigma 17-70 which was a fantastic lens.. are 3rd party lenses no good at this focal length?
Click to expand...

There really aren't a whole lot of FX options by other manufacturers. I believe Sigma makes one (not sure it accepts a front filter so you'd need to check) be sure to read the reviews and look for samples. I wasn't impressed with what I saw and read which is why I didn't choose it. Not sure if Tokina makes one or not--I *think* so but again the lack of a front filter comes to mind--not 100% sure though.

Here is one from my Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G:


Follow Me with LR5 Lens Profile Applied by *Hark*, on Flickr
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
jaydean said:
To get the best out a D800, you do need a good lens, there's no cheapskate way around it really.
Click to expand...

Not going cheap... I want a good lens, but that good lens doesnt HAVE to have the Nikon name on it! I have had good experiences with other brands in the past and didnt want to miss a good lens by only considering Nikon :)
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
jaydean said:
To get the best out a D800, you do need a good lens, there's no cheapskate way around it really.
Click to expand...

And it is for this very same reason why I wouldn't suggest the Sigma. The D800 sensor is going to reveal the faults of lenses that aren't as good.

Tokina makes a couple of wide angle FX lenses. When I was considering lenses, I believe their f/2.8 lens received many complaints about lens flare. It does have a more bulbous front lens than some. Tokina also makes an f/4, but you'd have to read up on it as I am not familiar with it at all.

Sigma used to make a 14mm f/2.8. Earlier in the summer I A/B'd a new one against a used Nikon 14mm f/2.8. I bought the Nikon, and it appears the Sigma was sold (it was their last one). Again...I don't think this type of prime will accept front filters, but I'm just throwing it out so you can consider all options. The store has a used Tamron 14mm f/2.8 but it wasn't nearly as good as the Sigma or Nikon.
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
Top