Is the 14-24 mm the best wide angle?

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Like a lot of folks I've been pushing the prospect of getting a wide angle lens.. Mainly due to the fact that I may not use it all that much and secondly cos I wasn't sure of which to get..
After reading and researching for over a year have seen the tokina 11-16 and the sigma 10-20 having the most desirable result..
I would pick either of these in a heartbeat but there arises another conundrum..
Looking at the way things have been progressing, am pretty certain u will go the route of full frame sooner than later..
Now that brings the 14-24 into equation.. Need not say all that much about it.. Everyone is quite aware of the awesomeness of this lens and the incredible price tag it comes with..
It would work quite well on dx as well...
So considering everything, is it advisable to wait and get the best? Or is the price gap not worth the wait or the extra large hole in the pocket?
Are there any other dx wide angles that could give the 14-24 a good competition?
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
How long do you wanna wait? While you're waiting, you're not taking pictures in that range... In the money business, that's called 'lost opportunity costs'...
 

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
It would work on a DX body but be the equivalent of a 21-36 mm so probably not the "Wide Angle" result you are looking for. I love mine and use it on a regular basis. I have read many positive reviews of the Tokina 11-16 but it is a DX lens as you stated. Have you considered renting one to help with your decision?
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
If you are going to be an infrequent user then I'm thinking that when you do want to use it you are going to want to get the most out of it. So, while the 14-24 may be the defacto IQ champion among ultra-wides, I opted for the 16-35mm f4 because I want to be able to put filters on it when I need to, from polarizers to graduated ND's, and you can't do that with the 14-24mm - at least not easily.

As for getting one now, if you're shooting DX it's not going to buy you much more in terms of "wide" than an 18-55/105mm, so it's a lot of money for not a lot of extra view.

If you want to try something now you're going to need to go to extremes, so something like the Sigma or Tokina will give you that. Personally, I learned my filter lesson the hard way with the Sigma 8-16mm. It suffers from the same issue as the 14-24mm - the curved front element will not allow for a filter. But it's also a stunning lens that gives you almost as much view as a fisheye with great lines. And I still use it occasionally on my D800 since I can get 16MP's in DX mode from it, and it gives me the equivalent of a 12-24mm, which is 4 more mm than I get from my 16-35mm.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
So considering everything, is it advisable to wait and get the best? Or is the price gap not worth the wait or the extra large hole in the pocket?
Are there any other dx wide angles that could give the 14-24 a good competition?

If you've meant "best" in optical quality, then it is the best wide angle lens.
To really appreciate a wide angle lens, it is best to use it on a full frame camera to see the difference.

It is not best if you are looking for a lighter lens, cheaper or if you need to use filters without spending ~ $600 for a lee filter adapter.
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I bought the Tokina 2 years ago for my D7000. I got a D600 earlier this year and the Tokina works at 16mm in FX mode. Not a zoom anymore, but wasn't much of a zoom anyway at 11-16 in DX.
 

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
When I purchased my 16-35, at a local camera shop, I was also trading in my last DX lens. While waiting for the salesman to examine my lens, he let me play with the the 16-35 for a few minutes. Then he pulls out the 14-24, in an attempt to "up sell" me. I played with both for over 30 minutes. The 14-24 is an impressive lens, but that bulbous front bothered me. I feared that I would damage it. Plus, it was just out of my price range. I like my 16-35. It's sharp and has VR. Many feel that you don't need VR on wide-angled lenses, but it does come in handy for shooting in low-light conditions. That's how Nikon justifies adding VR to a wide angle lens. Some argue that it's almost as sharp as the 14-24. You can't go wrong with either. I'm not familiar with the Tokina or Sigma.
 
Last edited:

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Hmm considering that I don't have an unlimited supply of money, I would need to weigh the options.. Hell if I could I would get the dx compatible one now and when I get the fax I'll get the 14-24... But I don't live in that world unfortunately ;-)
I have been making a conscious attempt towards dx glass.. Apart from the 18-55 and 35mm, the next 2 lenses I got were the 70-300 and 105. I am pretty certain to go the fx route soon.. So spending half of the money on a DX lens would kinda be a spanner in the wheel.. I've seen too many people getting their second choice now and buy what they want later, but it usually does not happen according to plan..

A VERY IMPORTANT point to consider for me and folks here in India is that there is virtually NO used market here.. So what I buy, I keep :)

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WhiteLight

Senior Member
It would work on a DX body but be the equivalent of a 21-36 mm so probably not the "Wide Angle" result you are looking for. I love mine and use it on a regular basis. I have read many positive reviews of the Tokina 11-16 but it is a DX lens as you stated. Have you considered renting one to help with your decision?

I have actually tried the Tokina and the nikon 12-24.. Absolutely loved them both... The thought of being 'future proof ' for fx is giving me the speed breakers in getting the Tokina or sigma dx..

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Does anyone have any idea on how the 14-24 would perform as a studio lens? For group shots or portraits?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The closest would be the 16-35.. Though I would prefer a tad more 'wide-ness'

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

That "tad more wideness" is really more a factor on the DX body than I believe it ever would be on an FX. 16mm is pretty darn wide on a full sensor. On the cropped sensor, having an 18mm on my basic zoom already, it seems like a lot of money for 2mm, and it is. I would strongly recommend holding off on buying either of those if you have no intention of going FX in the not too distant future. In fact, save your money and buy it with your FX body since Nikon often offers nice lens discounts when bought in combination with a new body. If you want to go wide now, get down to 8-11mm on the widest end with a good DX lens. And if you know you're going FX eventually then go as wide as you can so you have a lens that can work in a pinch down the road, even if you're only getting 10-16MP's in DX mode. You're still getting the shot.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Does anyone have any idea on how the 14-24 would perform as a studio lens? For group shots or portraits?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

IMHO it's WAY too wide for those purposes - at least at the wide end of the zoom. It's more a landscape than people lens. The folks on the edges will be too distorted.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I have actually tried the Tokina and the nikon 12-24.. Absolutely loved them both... The thought of being 'future proof ' for fx is giving me the speed breakers in getting the Tokina or sigma dx..

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

So why not get a used Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 while you're with the D7000. The 16-35 wouldn't do much in DX format.
 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
So why not get a used Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 while you're with the D7000. The 16-35 wouldn't do much in DX format.

No credible used market here Marcel.. People selling it here either would've damaged the lens or in more serious situations would be obtained from 'other' sources..
Getting from eBay as you know is risky.. And from international sites, the shipping would cost more than the lens

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
Does anyone have any idea on how the 14-24 would perform as a studio lens? For group shots or portraits?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

On a FX body it is too wide for studio portrait work I use it mainly for interior architectural work and on the wide end there is lots of photoshop perspective/straightening, don't know what that would do with a face. I actually like my 24-70 for studio ortrait work. Sorry for suggesting the rental option, didn't notice you are in India and probably not an option there.
 
Last edited:

Rick M

Senior Member
In this case I would buy a Dx UW lens and hope to get most of the money back when you trade up to Fx. I've know a few people that have bought the 14-24 and sold it a year latter because they didn't use it enough. Lots of cash to tie up in something you don't use a lot. They now use the 16-35 or the new 18-35 which I have and love (I have to throw in a vote for my lens :)). It is extremely sharp and the IQ/price ratio is great.
 

slowpoke

Senior Member
FYI,I use filters on the Tokina 11-16.I always have the UV filter on and I put the Polarizer on when needed,at F16.I would have to get a thin Polarizer filter,to use F11.:)
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
On a FX body it is too wide for studio portrait work I use it mainly for interior architectural work and on the wide end there is lots of photoshop perspective/straightening, don't know what that would do with a face. I actually like my 24-70 for studio ortrait work. Sorry for suggesting the rental option, didn't notice you are in India and probably not an option there.

I have similar experience and opinion with Bill. Once you try a FX camera, you won't go back to DX, well, at least with my experience and probably the majority of the people who have shifted to FX.

Once you have a FX camera, the widest you would go normally is 20mm for landscape and in most cases, 24mm is already wide for most shots including family group shots. I don't find it necessary to go really wide with FX unless you shoot a lot of panoramic shots.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
I was flicking through a Photography magazine today, they had a 3rd party wide angle lens comparison as a feature. One lens that caught my eye was the Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM -DigitalRev
While it wasn't the highest scoring lens in the test ( the Tokina 11-16 was ) but it wasnt too far behind , it was interesting to note that it is an FX lens.

EDIT- I should add that this lens is another that suffers the same problem regarding filters.
 
Last edited:
Top