Upgrading FX Wide Lens

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I'm lusting after a new lens - birthday comes up next month - and there is a camera show between now and then. ....

My current widest is an older Tamron 17-35, 2.8-4.0 lens. It works, and works well enough. No I don't need a new ultra-wide. I just want one.

But I'm looking at adding a faster prime to my wide options. The budget option would be a vintage Nikon 20mm 2.8 ... could happen?

Nikon's 1.8 20mm newer version is also an option - at about twice the money.

OR is the Siggy Artsy 20mm 1.4 a better choice for just a few dollars more (well ok, more than just a few). But it is a stop faster. I've been very impressed with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. Love it.

In one store a young clerk said I should really look harder at the FX 35mm .... Hmmm, I do shoot a lot of my 17-35mm shots zoomed to the max of 35..... BUT I do have a very nice 24-70 2.8 ... big, but nice. ..... So I'm thinking wider than that.

And I was real intreged by a new maker "Venus Optics" a tilt 15mm macro - but 4.0 so not the fastest lens on the shelf. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1165600-REG/venus_optics_laowa_15mm_f_4_macro.html

.... OR is a wide prime not the best option, maybe I should go for the Tamron 15-30 - hear lots of great things about that lens. .... for a few dollars more, well few hundred. .....


Here's a sample of the Tammy 17-35 - yes I was playing at odd perspective for this weeks game - but not this one.

DSC_2274+backyard various-0004+wide ice tall -0001.jpg
 

Samo

Senior Member
20mm and wider are, in my opinion, the most difficult focal lengths to learn and use properly. The idea of a 20 sounds great but all to often reality shows that maybe it wasnt such a great idea after all. I am not trying to discourage you but rather to warn you before hand!
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
The new Sigma 12-24 f4 Art sounds like a nice bit of gear. Yes f4 and not f2.8, but unless you want to shoot star shots....
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
The new Sigma 12-24 f4 Art sounds like a nice bit of gear. Yes f4 and not f2.8, but unless you want to shoot star shots....

I saw that one, but at over two grand CDN it seems just a little steep. Mind you Tammy 15-30 is now north of $1600 CDN so what is another $500 eh? ....
 
I have the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 I got it for shooting inside building but it has become my favorite lens. I use it more than any other lens. These are 2 I shot yesterday with this lens.

04-08-2017_0083-pano.jpg


04-08-2017_0127.jpg
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I have the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 I got it for shooting inside building but it has become my favorite lens. I use it more than any other lens. These are 2 I shot yesterday with this lens.

I just read up on that one.

Priced well below the others. - Gets good reviews - not super, but good, often with a comment like value for the price. I do not have a Tokina so this would be a first for me. Only thing that puts me off is the bulbous front end (as several of these ultra wides tend to have) I worry it would be easily marked. I'm not a ND filter user - but I do put protective glass on on my lenses just for insurance. I have looked into but never invested in filters. But if I did have a filter I would think a landscape lens would be the most likely candidate.

Will look for a sample to try this out though - thanks for the tip.
 
I just read up on that one.

Priced well below the others. - Gets good reviews - not super, but good, often with a comment like value for the price. I do not have a Tokina so this would be a first for me. Only thing that puts me off is the bulbous front end (as several of these ultra wides tend to have) I worry it would be easily marked. I'm not a ND filter user - but I do put protective glass on on my lenses just for insurance. I have looked into but never invested in filters. But if I did have a filter I would think a landscape lens would be the most likely candidate.

Will look for a sample to try this out though - thanks for the tip.

I don't have a filter on mine but it comes with a hood that is not removable that protects it pretty good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

pforsell

Senior Member
I'm lusting after a new lens - birthday comes up next month - and there is a camera show between now and then. ....

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!!

Zooms
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.

Primes
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.

Conclusion

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
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Thanks for the overview Peter. You touched on several lenses I've considered.

You mentioned fisheye's and while I do have two Lensbaby fisheyes I do not have an autofocus version - and Lensbaby is more of a fun lens - a lot of fun actually, but not the same as say that Nikon 16mm fish. I have been intrigued by the Sigma 15mm fish which does get good reviews. I've not had any issues with third party, happy with Tamron's and the new Sigma 50mm Art. Although when I bought my Nikkor 200-500 it was the speed and accuracy of the autofocus that ultimately put it ahead of the other two contenders.

I've seen the 14mm wide on sale second hand, wondered about that one.

Appreciate your comment on manual lenses and eye sight. Been giving thought to getting that gizmo that goes into the camera to give you the old film style view finder, was so disappointed when I first tried manual focus and got nostalgic for my old film viewfinder view. Live view is an option when working on static subjects.

Will have to see what I can find when I get to the camera show on the 22nd in Edmonton. . . .

The other option I have is to go wide on my D7100 - there are a whole other crop of DX ultra wides ... and usually at a much better price point. .... but I tend to think of FX as best wide and DX as best long. .... but it is an option. ... too many options.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
That was a good set of reviews Peter. I have a few of those lenses and can add a little. The 14-24 2.8 is a handful but always performs well. I had a 14 2.8 first and never fell in love wit it too expensive for what it delivers and optically the is better.
I got a used 24 1.4 a few years ago and thought it was great for night street and people in scene shooting which is why I got it but something changed, maybe I got too used to it but seldom use it now. Maybe I will fall back into love with it if I go out and leave everything else at home. There is no reason to get one unless you shoot wide open, for that, it is the only game in town for street,social events . A 14-24 would be a better all round lens due to being so versatile for landscape, studio, street, event, and architecture. Most of my shooting involved people, fairly close and their relation to the scene is seen very well.
If you need 20mm and fast, don't underestimate that smaller plastic lens....it is very good...very. If that FL works for you, try it. Nikon has winners all over that f/1.8G series. Yes it is plastic but it is a lot lighter so you would take it more places. It is every bit as good as the 14-25 at 20mm but faster and lighter, and 1/2 the price. I got one on a whim...normally I have to save or defer a little longer since I live on the local economy and everything imported is more expensive than back home in the US. My other favorite plastic 1.8g is the 85 1.8g that is a winner in all categories. I got it to make up a lighter kit and since using it on my D800 and D7000, my 85 1.4D sits on the shelf.
I went shooting with a friend who just got into photography with a D810 and 2/3rds of the Trinity. he could not find a store with 1 14-24 2.8 in stock locally so ended up with a Tamron 15-30 2.8. After playing with it for a weekend of snowy landscape and cityscape, that is one heck of a bargain. I liked it a lot. I never had a Tamron before but that lens is solid and a great performer, hard to beat for that range and price.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
That was a good set of reviews Peter. I have a few of those lenses and can add a little. The 14-24 2.8 is a handful but always performs well. I had a 14 2.8 first and never fell in love wit it too expensive for what it delivers and optically the is better.
I got a used 24 1.4 a few years ago and thought it was great for night street and people in scene shooting which is why I got it but something changed, maybe I got too used to it but seldom use it now. Maybe I will fall back into love with it if I go out and leave everything else at home. There is no reason to get one unless you shoot wide open, for that, it is the only game in town for street,social events . A 14-24 would be a better all round lens due to being so versatile for landscape, studio, street, event, and architecture. Most of my shooting involved people, fairly close and their relation to the scene is seen very well.
If you need 20mm and fast, don't underestimate that smaller plastic lens....it is very good...very. If that FL works for you, try it. Nikon has winners all over that f/1.8G series. Yes it is plastic but it is a lot lighter so you would take it more places. It is every bit as good as the 14-25 at 20mm but faster and lighter, and 1/2 the price. I got one on a whim...normally I have to save or defer a little longer since I live on the local economy and everything imported is more expensive than back home in the US. My other favorite plastic 1.8g is the 85 1.8g that is a winner in all categories. I got it to make up a lighter kit and since using it on my D800 and D7000, my 85 1.4D sits on the shelf.
I went shooting with a friend who just got into photography with a D810 and 2/3rds of the Trinity. he could not find a store with 1 14-24 2.8 in stock locally so ended up with a Tamron 15-30 2.8. After playing with it for a weekend of snowy landscape and cityscape, that is one heck of a bargain. I liked it a lot. I never had a Tamron before but that lens is solid and a great performer, hard to beat for that range and price.

__________

Keep coming back to that Tamron 15-30; A couple of years ago when I bought the 17-35 Tamron (used), I had gone into the store to look at the then new 15-30mm but didn't have the cash on hand to buy it. As I recall I paid about $350 for the 17-35 and it does the job. .... I expect the Tamron sales team at the Camera show in Edmonton on the 22nd - maybe with a deep discount on the 15-30? One can hope.

Your remarks about the "20mm ... smaller plastic lens" with "winners all over that 1.8G series" has me looking at Nikon. The current prices on new 20mm Nikkors, 2.8 - $800, 1.8 - $1,000, 1.4 - $2,500 (all CDN $ - in Calgary) . For comparison the Siggy Art 1.4 is $1,150 - or less than half the Nikon 1.4. One stop of light is a factor but from what I've read the Siggy is better at 1.8 than 1.4 anyway. (As are most lenses if you back off a stop from full open). I already have the Nikon 85 1.8G and I like it - don't use it as much as I should, bought it specifically for portraits.

.... I'm still in a muddle - Zoom or Prime. .... how fast does it need to be 1.4, 1.8, 2.8 ... or heaven forbid even a F4. .... and then don't forget - maybe widen my DX options?

And then there is the fisheye option.....

Options are good. just have to muddle through all of this.

. . .
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Reading and watching reviews and bits about ultra wides and fisheyes on line.
One article that was a little different was a blog about using a DX ultra wide on a FX body - a little dated but that doesn't change anything. https://www.slrlounge.com/how-to-use-a-crop-sensor-lens-on-a-full-frame-dslr/

Bottom line, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 makes a great 16mm 2.8 ultra wide FX lens. I wonder what the newer 11-20 would be like? I'll have to try this on my D610 and see what I see. This is with the auto DX cropping disabled. Interesting twist - just what I need even more options.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
I remember reading somewhere about the 11-16 being good at 16 on FX as well, but I also remember a couple of members who went up to FX when the D600 first came out, thinking that they would just use their 11-16's for their wide lens. I can remember at least 1 or 2 of them werent too happy with the results. Bit long ago for me to remember all the details, but I am thinking maybe @BackdoorHippie might have been one of them.
 
Last edited:

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I remember reading somewhere about the 11-16 being good at 16 on FX as well, but I also remember a couple of members who went up to FX when the D600 first came out, thinking that they would just use their 11-16's for their wide lens. I can remember at least 1 or 2 of them werent too happy with the results. Bit long ago for me to remember all the details, but I am thinking maybe @BackdoorHippie might have been one of them.
I tried using DX glass on my new FX body when I first switched, and while it does work in the technical sense (obviously) I didn't care for it; at all.

For anyone thinking this idea sounds like the greatest thing since sliced-bread I'd suggest you actually try it before buying into it based on how it sounds "on paper", if at all possible. Speaking for myself, I couldn't get full-frame glass on my full-frame body fast enough.
 
Last edited:

pforsell

Senior Member
While some DX lenses can project a full frame size image circle at some focal lengths, the quality of the image outside the DX crop might not be very good. Especially chromatic aberrations tend to be very exaggerated. It is best to try the potential lens on your own camera and excercise a critical eye. Sample variations will be big and different sensors react differently to oblique angle light rays. Better not 'trust' reviews made with different equipment.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I hear you, looks like this idea of getting a DX lens for the D610 would not make sense. Seems that this DX on FX is limited to 16mm - and I already have an FX 16mm at 2.8 with the Tamron ultra wide.

There is still the option to just go ultra wide on the D7100. Have looked a a few comparisons between 11mm DX lens on a DX camera vs a 16mm FX lens on FX camera ... not a lot of difference when looking at the images. My D610 and my D7100 have different sensors but both 24mp. I think the D610 is better low light, but there is considerable cost savings on the DX lenses. And if I get one with internal motor it would also function on the D5100 - that swivel screen has allowed me to put the camera in some odd spots and swing the screen around to get the shot with the camera up against a wall - trick is to keep out of the photograph - unless your going for that selfie.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I'll just be matter of fact about it. You can weigh 300 pounds and squeeze into a size Medium t-shirt, but you're not going to like the results and chances are neither at the others looking at them. But it'll keep you warmer than going naked.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I had a 20mm f/2.8 Nikon prime, but I much prefer my Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G lens which is far more versatile. Since you already own a wide angle zoom, you simply would be overlapping the same range if you go with a 20mm prime. Granted one gives you an extra stop, but why not consider something in a range you don't already own?

You mentioned a 14mm rectilinear prime. I bought a pre-owned Nikon 14mm f/2.8 and love it. I *think* Sigma makes something comparable in a prime. I also tried out a pre-owned Tamron 14mm which wasn't nearly as good as either the Nikon or the Sigma. You have an FX body so a 14mm prime is considered an ultra wide (17mm and 18mm on an FX body are considered to be wide angle, not ultra wide). 14mm lenses are terrific for Milky Way images and stars. Just a thought. ;)
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I had a 20mm f/2.8 Nikon prime, but I much prefer my Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G lens which is far more versatile. Since you already own a wide angle zoom, you simply would be overlapping the same range if you go with a 20mm prime. Granted one gives you an extra stop, but why not consider something in a range you don't already own?

You mentioned a 14mm rectilinear prime. I bought a pre-owned Nikon 14mm f/2.8 and love it. I *think* Sigma makes something comparable in a prime. I also tried out a pre-owned Tamron 14mm which wasn't nearly as good as either the Nikon or the Sigma. You have an FX body so a 14mm prime is considered an ultra wide (17mm and 18mm on an FX body are considered to be wide angle, not ultra wide). 14mm lenses are terrific for Milky Way images and stars. Just a thought. ;)


I see Henry's of Toronto has a 14mm used on sale for a bit over a grand (CDN$) which is in the ball park of a new 20mm Siggy 1.4.


The 15mm or 16mm Fisheyes (Sigma and Nikon respectively) can be found on line for in that same ballpark. I have lensbaby all manual circular fisheyes. Both are unique (5.6 and 12mm) The 12mm is an optic insert for their tilt function. The 5.6 has that nifty internal chrome reflection thing going for it. But they are 'artsy' lenses for special affect. Adding a rectangular fisheye would be something I don't have.


I have pondered going old school with a vintage (but still available new) 20mm 2.8 - but not a lot of love out there for that old bit of glass. I think the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 would be very similar to the Nikon 18-35 you describe, at least for focal length. IQ opnions may vary. I used it a lot at a recent out door party I attended. Here is a sample.
wagon sm.jpg

Other than downsizing and converting from RAW to JPG this is as shot.
EXIF does not come up on my screen: Tamron 17-35 at 17mm, almost wide open at F3.2
Shot in manual mode, 1/640 shutter. ISO 400. D610

This lens does vignette - I tend to be a crop-a-lot kinda guy so often not an issue unless the interesting part of the image is right at the corner of the picture.
 
Last edited:
Top