Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Best wide angle lens for full frame?
Dieselstation Car Forums > Multimedia > Photography > Gear & Equipment
D.Freeman
I just received my Nikon D3 yesterday, and I'm having lots of fun playing around with it today, although the weather is a bit boring today sad.gif

As the D3 is a FX body, and my D200 a DX body, my 12-24mm DX lens would be unsuited for the D3.

So what is the best all round wide angle lens for FX Nikon cameras? (APART FROM THE 14-24mm, can't use filters with that lens! sad.gif)


Any help much appreciated smile.gif
mopho
In case you didn't know, the 12-24 DX lens will work with the D3, it can cover the larger chip from 18mm-24mm
D.Freeman
^ Yeh I noticed that after 18mm it did fill the frame. But the edges were very soft.

I might see how I get on with it, but I was just finding out what my options were, just in case I had to get a FF wideangle smile.gif
Jag_Imaging
I really love my Sigma 20 1.8 on my full frame body..
mackey
They make some wide angle 20mm primes
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8294...e_Angle_AF.html

but that's not "super wide" which would be nice for rig shots and such.

They do offer a 14mm lens, but I wonder how bad the distortion is.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2014...e_Angle_AF.html

Another reason why i'm migrating to Canon.
Nike SB'd
Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 is hands down the best wide angle lens for Nikon that can accept filters. The only better wide angle available for ANY full frame platform is Nikon's newer AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 Nano which as you've already stated you can't mount a filter on. But I must say, try that lens sometime, it's unbelievable. Seriously, it's that good. But the 17-35 is on my camera 80% of the time. The 14-24mm trumps the fixed 14mm that Josh posted in every way. And why are you changing to Canon Josh? Because Nikon makes THE BEST 35mm platform lenses around?
mackey
Full frame, Megapixels.

I want to push my pixels to the limit, I can't do that with 12mp. Glass is glass, I know nikon makes some of the best, but I should get similar results with L glass.
VisualEchos
Nike: Spot-on man, the D700 + 17-35 is a great WA combo, just not as good as the D700 + 14-24.

Josh: I'm surprised you're chasing megapixels, as in some ways more megapixels is worse, but hey, do what you have to do. There are a few things that Canon has over Nikon; glass choice, price, but that's it.
DrDevil87
Well... It's not exactly a super wide but you allways have the 16mm Fisheye
Nike SB'd
QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 19 2009, 09:21 PM) *
Full frame, Megapixels.

I want to push my pixels to the limit, I can't do that with 12mp. Glass is glass, I know nikon makes some of the best, but I should get similar results with L glass.


Nikon also has the highest megapixel count full frame camera available - 24mp D3X. Nikon has generally had better made cameras with more features, better quality images but less MP. This is the first time Nikon has had a camera that trumps Canon in every way... and you're switching now?
Nike SB'd
QUOTE(DrDevil87 @ Oct 19 2009, 09:46 PM) *
Well... It's not exactly a super wide but you allways have the 16mm Fisheye


I have the 16mm lens and it NEVER gets used. On a full frame the distortion makes it basically useless for anything other than "fine art."
OHirtenfelder
I have teh 12-24mmDX , which I'm now still using on my D700, and it's so-so. Distortion is quite bad, and it can only be used up to about 18mm, and yesthe falloff is pretty bad. Sometimes the centre of the image is sharp, and the edges are almost out of focus.
I've tried the 14-24,, FX on my D700, and it's not as good as everyone raves on about. Granted, I only did one rig shot with it, but the distortion(or tlack thereof) isn't as great as everyone says, plus it can't take filters, which are often a must for rig shots.
D.Freeman
I have been looking into the 17-35mm as mentioned above. It seems quite hard to get hold of, are Nikon still making it?!

Quite costly too, but I may be selling off my D200 and DX lenses to fund it smile.gif
mackey
QUOTE(Nike SB'd @ Oct 19 2009, 09:49 PM) *
Nikon also has the highest megapixel count full frame camera available - 24mp D3X. Nikon has generally had better made cameras with more features, better quality images but less MP. This is the first time Nikon has had a camera that trumps Canon in every way... and you're switching now?


Dude, you realize you just mentioned a camera that costs $8,000 dollars right?

That's almost 4x my budget for a new body lol..

I don't get why people have been arguing it with me constantly, if I feel like Canon wasn't the right choice, it'll be VERY easy for me to switch back.
Nike SB'd
QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 20 2009, 09:56 AM) *
Dude, you realize you just mentioned a camera that costs $8,000 dollars right?

That's almost 4x my budget for a new body lol..

I don't get why people have been arguing it with me constantly, if I feel like Canon wasn't the right choice, it'll be VERY easy for me to switch back.


Of course I realize how expensive the camera is, and rightfully so. I'm not trying to argue with you, it's just that your logic seems wrong. If you straight up said "I want to pay under $3k for a camera with over 20MP and I don't give a crap about how bad the rest of the camera sucks" I would have said go for the 5D MK II. It's definitely the best still-life camera for under $5k. The focusing system sucks. It's frame rate is total garbage. The build quality is terrible. But it has the ability to make some killer images, for sure. But I think there are a lot of other things you aren't thinking about with this choice. But again it's up to you, I just recommend you rent/borrow a 5D MK II AND a Nikon D700 first because I think you're going to be surprised.
VisualEchos
QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 20 2009, 11:56 AM) *
I don't get why people have been arguing it with me constantly, if I feel like Canon wasn't the right choice, it'll be VERY easy for me to switch back.


I wasn't trying to argue, I was just surprised you noted megapixels as one of your reasons for switching.
Nike SB'd
QUOTE(VisualEchos @ Oct 20 2009, 08:05 PM) *
I wasn't trying to argue, I was just surprised you noted megapixels as one of your reasons for switching.


Couldn't agree more... Take a look at this
DonJuanMair
but i do love being able to crop the hell out of my 5D mkII pics!
mackey
I'm talking about a budget for what I want and need. The D3, D3s and D3X are all well out of my budget for Full Frame cameras.

Comparing the 5D II to the Nikon equivalent is a joke, the D700. I'm pretty sure that the 5D exceeds most benchmarks when it comes to performance (might lack AF points and it might be a little slow for most people, but I don't shoot sports, etc) Arguing ergonomics is simply just a personal preference. It will feel different to me for sure, thats because I've used Nikon for over 6 years.

The ISO comparison beats it hands down, and the MP debate about file density doesn't make any sense to me. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the 5d ii has proven itself, both with quality of the MP, full frame, and ISO, I don't see how me trying to make a budget conscious move is the wrong move.
VisualEchos
QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 21 2009, 09:51 AM) *
Comparing the 5D II to the Nikon equivalent is a joke, the D700.

Yep, you're as clueless as I thought you were. Thanks for clearing that up laugh.gif.
Nike SB'd
QUOTE(VisualEchos @ Oct 21 2009, 11:02 AM) *
Yep, you're as clueless as I thought you were. Thanks for clearing that up laugh.gif.


When I read this I gave up...

QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 21 2009, 08:51 AM) *
the MP debate about file density doesn't make any sense to me.
mackey
that's life I guess, I take pictures, and I wanted full frame, and Canon was a better choice for me, oh well..

No one died.
mackey
I actually just went through about 6-7 different side by side comparisons of both cameras, and they're about both on par with each other. The major factor is video, which I have no plans for, but good to know it's there. The D700 performs better at a higher ISO and the 5D has more noise at 100% crop because of the large MP count, but that's probably normal.

All in all, As much as I wanted to stay with Nikon, It would have cost me more to upgrade to the D700, than it would to switch. So I think I made the right decision.
brenton ho
I just started using a Tokina 17f/3.5 for my UWA/rig lens. Like other cheap UWA's it lacks super sharp corners, but seems to do the job, and has decent control of lens flare and has 77front thread already.

I really want to try the sigma 20 f/1.8, but i heard its pretty bad when it comes to lens flare! in my head its hard to justify keeping such a slow prime like the 17f/3.5 but it gets the job done!
VisualEchos
QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 21 2009, 10:18 PM) *
I actually just went through about 6-7 different side by side comparisons of both cameras, and they're about both on par with each other. The major factor is video, which I have no plans for, but good to know it's there. The D700 performs better at a higher ISO and the 5D has more noise at 100% crop because of the large MP count, but that's probably normal.


This sounds more like it.

QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 21 2009, 10:18 PM) *
All in all, As much as I wanted to stay with Nikon, It would have cost me more to upgrade to the D700, than it would to switch. So I think I made the right decision.


I understand completely, I just hate to see you finally step up to ff and step down to Canon in the same stroke, but if you can get used to the ergonomics, you'll certainly be at a better price point with the Canon.
Nike SB'd
http://blairbunting.com/blog/?p=744

Not naming any names, but there is actually a member of this board that is currently in the process of selling his 5D MK II to get a D700...
Hartawan
Filter fix for 14-24mm

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...thread=32710768

I am too considering this lens.
D.Freeman
^Thanks for the post.

Im still against the 14-24, mainly because of the weight too. A 14-24 and a D3 is a lot of weight on the end of a rig!!

I think the 17-35 will be my best bet smile.gif
D.Freeman
Sorry to bring up an oldish thread again, but it looks like Nikon have answered my prayers with the 16-35mm f/4!
Thank you Nikon!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.