Jump to content

Wide angle lenses for Nikon full frame?


Recommended Posts

Wide angle lenses for Nikon full frame?

 

That do not weigh close to 2 pounds?

 

Not sure if I want a wide prime or zoom this time.

 

It needs to be wider than 24mm though.

 

I'll be using it on the Nikon D750.

 

For the life of me,can't remember what I had when I used the Nikon D700 a few years ago!

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linda the Nikon 20mm f1.8G ED AFS got a good review in Pop Photo lens test.  According to the specs it weighted in at .83lbs, not sure if it would fill the bill for you.  They were testing it  on a D4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Leader of the Opposition gives me the Green light I'll be getting the 20mm f1.8. It's getting pretty good reviews all round. I was initially going to go for the 16-35mm f4, but I realized that most of the time I used my 12-24mm (with my D300), I used it on its widest setting. So I'll save $500 and a pound in weight and get the new 20mm. I've been dropping anvil sized hints for a while now, so I'm sure the boss will tell me to go shopping. After all, it's the amount of kit we buy that counts, right?

Colin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. A bit lighter and cheaper and more compact is the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF for FX.  http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_20_2p8d  I have that lens and love it. And I still own the Nikon 20mm f/4 ai. This one is so small you can put it in a pocket.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20f4.htm

 

Linda, I see not point in carrying a wide-angle zoom, if you're trying to reduce size and weight. Both of the new 20mm's weigh under a pound. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago after wearing out my original Nikon 24mm 2.8 I decided to treat myself and replace it with a 24mm 2.0 The newer lens was faster but really suffered in terms of image quality. If I were to consider upgrading to the 1.8 I'd definitely want to rent one first before spending all that money.

 

I curretly have the Nikon 20mm 2.8 AF-D, same as Ed, and it's a nice compact lens that I sometimes use when I want to travel light. While scanning older work, I can see the newer 20mm AF-D isn't as sharp and has more CA than my previous 20mm AF. Even so,  it's not so bad that you can't correct it in Lightroom or PhotoShop.

 

Not only is the 20mm 2.8 smaller, lighter and cheaper, but it still has an aperture ring in case you decide to use it on an older Nikon body.

 

fD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd ever want to use an older Nikon body. I don't have one to use. :-)

I do have the Tokina 12-24mm which I like and noticed a lot of people use it on full frame Nikons.

 

Here is a page of results on Flickr:

 

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nikon%20d700%20tokina%2012-24mm

 

I will give it a try when I get the D750 this week.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linda,

 

I've owned a lot of NIKKOR 20's all 2.8, from the MF to the AF-D, I have a AF 20 2.8

sitting on my desk that I use for a paper weight (works great as one).  The lens I've really

taken a liking to is the TOKINA 16-28 AF-D 2.8, but it is not small.  It is extremely sharp

in the center and very sharp every where at 5.6.  I've also had two versions of the

NIKKOR 12-24 f4 and the early version was great used on FUJI S5s, but on the FF

NIKON D800's, in DX format, I was not happy with the quality on the newer version.

 

The funny thing is that none of the NIKKORs come close to my old Canon FD 20 2.8 or my

Leitz 21 3.4 (BTW was very small and light) back in the days of Kodachrome. 

 

I just can't work with a prime wide any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few of the Tokina DX lenses look good on full frame. I assume though you have to zoom them out the middle somewhere.

 

When I had my Nikon D700 several years ago I did use the Tokina 17-35mm 2.8 and the shots I just found look really good.

 

I'll see if I can manage with the Tokina wide angle I currently have and if the results are not as good as I had before then I'll take a further look at some of these suggestions here.

bad part for me is there are no well stocked camera stores near me. :-(

 

One thing I miss about not having a Fuji or Sony is doing those quick panoramas.

Thx!

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a look at the Tokina 16-28 and it gets good reviews for what it's put up against and cost, but there's a new one on the horizon from Tamron. The 15-30 2.8. In tests with the 14-24 Nikkor it equals it's performance and gives better flare control. Flare and CA being two of the biggest pet hates about a lens. Especially one that costs a fortune. Granted it depends on what you're shooting. 

 

The Tokina seems to go quite cheap, and I noticed this when I went to sell my 11-16 2.8. Lost a lot of money on it. Vowed never to buy third party again. I really should have said, I'll never buy a lens I'll sell in 6 months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. A bit lighter and cheaper and more compact is the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF for FX.  http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_20_2p8d  I have that lens and love it. And I still own the Nikon 20mm f/4 ai. This one is so small you can put it in a pocket.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20f4.htm

 

Linda, I see not point in carrying a wide-angle zoom, if you're trying to reduce size and weight. Both of the new 20mm's weigh under a pound. 

I have a few big client jobs coming up where I have to get the whole huge room in and shoot enormous vendor displays. Also,same type of thing at a few conventions. So,a wide angle is needed. Just how wide? Not sure yet but I'd better figure it out within a week.

I may try and wing it with my Tokina 12-24mm. I've worked with these clients before so I'll have to look at my old images to see 'how wide' I got and try to remember if I was happy with that and if the client was as well.

 

But I agree,don't like to take out more heavy stuff than I need to. I've already asked them if I will have to do anything on the stage that would require 70-300mm or whatever.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 24 2.8 and 28 2.8 AIS lenses are very light and apparently very available 2nd hand at reasonable prices (according to Don in other thread). I have both but the 28 got damaged some years ago and resides peacefully in a drawer - I was told it couldn't be repaired. It is one of the best lenses Nikon have ever made - very sharp, flare resistant and beautiful colours. The 24 is not as sharp across the field, noticeable particularly on the D800 at full size on screen (the 24 AFD is similar) but would be fine on a 24MP camera. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've decided to just stick with Canon for now. It's going to be too much hassle to switch and I think the 16-35 will do me. I've seen some shots using the 17-40 and it fits in quite a lot of the scene. The 16-35 f4 is supposed to be a better lens. I will try Nikon one day, that I've promised myself, however, in less stressful decision making times lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never a good idea to buy gear when injured or stressed.Been there,done that many times over the past 2 years.

 

The Canon 17-40 does fit in a lot though copies I had thru the years varied. The last one I had was not sharp at all and I returned it.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago after wearing out my original Nikon 24mm 2.8 I decided to treat myself and replace it with a 24mm 2.0 The newer lens was faster but really suffered in terms of image quality. If I were to consider upgrading to the 1.8 I'd definitely want to rent one first before spending all that money.

 

I curretly have the Nikon 20mm 2.8 AF-D, same as Ed, and it's a nice compact lens that I sometimes use when I want to travel light. While scanning older work, I can see the newer 20mm AF-D isn't as sharp and has more CA than my previous 20mm AF. Even so,  it's not so bad that you can't correct it in Lightroom or PhotoShop.

 

Not only is the 20mm 2.8 smaller, lighter and cheaper, but it still has an aperture ring in case you decide to use it on an older Nikon body.

 

fD

 

Yeah, that was a honey of a lens, the f/2.8 24mm. It was my workhorse for a long time, and I too liked it better than the f/2 that replaced it -- I still have the f/2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Many years ago after wearing out my original Nikon 24mm 2.8 I decided to treat myself and replace it with a 24mm 2.0 The newer lens was faster but really suffered in terms of image quality. If I were to consider upgrading to the 1.8 I'd definitely want to rent one first before spending all that money.

 

I curretly have the Nikon 20mm 2.8 AF-D, same as Ed, and it's a nice compact lens that I sometimes use when I want to travel light. While scanning older work, I can see the newer 20mm AF-D isn't as sharp and has more CA than my previous 20mm AF. Even so,  it's not so bad that you can't correct it in Lightroom or PhotoShop.

 

Not only is the 20mm 2.8 smaller, lighter and cheaper, but it still has an aperture ring in case you decide to use it on an older Nikon body.

 

fD

 

Yeah, that was a honey of a lens, the f/2.8 24mm. It was my workhorse for a long time, and I too liked it better than the f/2 that replaced it -- I still have the f/2. 

 

 

My favourite is the f/2.8 28mm nikkor (manual focus) from quite a few decades ago . . . not wide enough for Linda's op, but along with my old, bold and manual focus 135mm f/2 and a 180mm f/2.8 . . . oh my. Wouldn't trade any of them for the world.

 

dd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Many years ago after wearing out my original Nikon 24mm 2.8 I decided to treat myself and replace it with a 24mm 2.0 The newer lens was faster but really suffered in terms of image quality. If I were to consider upgrading to the 1.8 I'd definitely want to rent one first before spending all that money.

 

I curretly have the Nikon 20mm 2.8 AF-D, same as Ed, and it's a nice compact lens that I sometimes use when I want to travel light. While scanning older work, I can see the newer 20mm AF-D isn't as sharp and has more CA than my previous 20mm AF. Even so,  it's not so bad that you can't correct it in Lightroom or PhotoShop.

 

Not only is the 20mm 2.8 smaller, lighter and cheaper, but it still has an aperture ring in case you decide to use it on an older Nikon body.  Except that a

 

fD

 

Yeah, that was a honey of a lens, the f/2.8 24mm. It was my workhorse for a long time, and I too liked it better than the f/2 that replaced it -- I still have the f/2. 

 

 

My favourite is the f/2.8 28mm nikkor (manual focus) from quite a few decades ago . . . not wide enough for Linda's op, but along with my old, bold and manual focus 135mm f/2 and a 180mm f/2.8 . . . oh my. Wouldn't trade any of them for the world.

 

dd

 

 

I agree - If I could only buy one older lens for a Nikon full-frame the f/2.8 28mm AIS is the one I would go for.  The later AF version was somewhat inferior.  I recently tried an 20mm 2.8 AF-D and found it underwhelming.  The new G lens has to be better. 

 

I generally use a 5:4 crop, and sometime a 3:2 crop (maybe only available on D4/D800/D810s) and found I could use my old Tokina DX 11-16 as a prime at 16mm.  Made a direct comparison with the 20mm AF.  Makes the 20mm look damaged.  On full-frame, most would find the corners unacceptable, though.  

 

I also use a f/2.8 24mm  AFD.  It's better than the 20mm, but not without problems.

 

For the bees knees you would want a Zeiss Distagon 21mm or even a PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED. But for everyday/event/travel a total waste of money.  Except that PC-E could turn a travel shooter into an architectural photographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I've been using the Tokina 16-28 2.8 for a while now and I will say that I like it better on my

D800's than the NIKKOR 12-24 f4.  I don't use it at 2.8 very often, mostly f 4 down to f11 and

it is exceptionally sharp with great contrast.  It is a great deal at less than $600 new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linda

The Nikon AFS 18-35 3.5-4.5g ED which came out in 2013 is the one I've put on my D800 the last 18 months; it's got rave reviews (dxomark.com) it's super sharp, light and has a reasonable price as well. If you need to go fixed I would go with the 20 2.8 or maybe the 28 1.8g.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Linda,

I just bought the Nikon 20mm f1.8 and will be taking it down to the south of my province to do some landscape and night photography with my D800 (its too light up where I live at night to get any decent darkness). It took over two months for it to arrive once it was ordered, so I gather it has been popular. So if you can wait a couple of weeks I can let you know how it performs.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an aside:

Just in case someone needs a wide angle lens and doesn't see 2-pound weight as deal-breaker - I've used Nikon's 14-24/2.8 for years with my D700, D4, and I love it:  jet  •  angel wide  •  angel close

 

Since I'm so often in situations where I cannot get the shot just by moving my feet, I'm not a big fan of primes, except for macro & fisheye. - Ann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chuck - Perhaps you know my (hopefully delightful) photographic doppelgänger?  

 

In late 80's, I was an English teacher, though already having great fun taking photographs.  smiles - The original Ann 

 

 

Ann,

 

Why do I think I know you from another photo agency in the late 80's? or am

I confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.