Finally getting an FX Nikon... need new wide-angle

[Shacklebolt]

So my lenses are 24-70, and 70-200... need a wide angle, but very torn.

Boy, I wish Nikon made a 16-35 f/2.8. Oh well.

Anyway, what's the ideal Nikon wide-angle to go with a D700? the 17-35 f/2.8? or The 14-24? Or something else?

I've used the 14-24 in the past, and I certainly like it, but I'm not wild about being permanently stuck w/a fisheye-type, non-filterable lens.

Any thoughts are most welcome. I shoot mostly concerts, but I plan to use it for landscape/travel photography at some point.

 

[cosmokanga2]

I've used the 14-24 and it is the widest non-fisheye wide angle lens that Nikon makes. It is possible to put a filer on using the Lee filter system however the set-up is not practical for fast moving photography. Landscape it looks great though.

Also the front element is exposed so if your line of work includes the high possibility of damage to the element, fixing it could be expensive. That said though, how many other photographers are going to have a 14mm non-fisheye lens with them.

Personally I'll be getting the 14-24mm when I upgrade to the FX because it is a great lens and I'm a sucker for wide shots.

 

[HBOC]

There are lots of Canon people using the Nikon 14-24 on their 5Ds!

 

[Shacklebolt]

There are lots of Canon people using the Nikon 14-24 on their 5Ds!

Wow. Hmmmm..... maybe that's the one then.

 

[CK Williams]

The 16-35 f/4 works very well with the D700. Use the auto-ISO setting and you'll never miss the one stop difference. Also, it uses 77mm filters like the 24-70 and 70-200.

 

[Ruahrc]

Boy, I wish Nikon made a 16-35 f/2.8. Oh well.

Anyway, what's the ideal Nikon wide-angle to go with a D700? the 17-35 f/2.8? or The 14-24? Or something else?

??? I understand that 1mm can be meaningful, especially at the wider end- but Nikon does make the 17-35 f2.8 which is almost exactly what you are looking for?

Anyways the 14-24 is universally praised and with good reason. It might not be outrageous to pick up a 14-24 now for the concerts, and the 16-35 f/4 for the landscapes later on- after the bank account has recovered?

 

[flosseR]

Well it all depends how far you want to zoom in.
I just had a 14-24 on loan fro a friend and its probably the best ultra wide angle lens I have worked with from Nikon or anyone else. BUT its also damn expensive. I have tested the 16-35 VR f4 and I have to say, I will most likely get that. The F4 is easily compensated by a) the VR and b) the nano coating and crispness of the results. The 17-35 f2.8 is not Nano coated and has no VR and it is 1mm less viewing angle. The other thing I have to add is that the 16-355mm shows, in my opinion, much less distortion than the 17-35.

Anyway if you want REALLY wide you could always look at the Sigma 12-24mm. Great reviews and even wider than Nikon's offering.

 

[kuaiyouming]

.

 

[flosseR]

My favorite lens is the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye. It's excellent for making very unique bendy shots in tight space, and of course, capturing very wide views in open space.

Which is, AFAIK, a DX lens not a FX lens..

 

[kuaiyouming]

.

 

[leighonigar]

Woops, I wondered why it hadn't been mentioned earlier.

I would suggest that the main reason is that it's a fisheye.

What exactly is wrong with the 16-35 f/4?

 

[Shacklebolt]

??? I understand that 1mm can be meaningful, especially at the wider end- but Nikon does make the 17-35 f2.8 which is almost exactly what you are looking for?

"Almost" being the operative word - you're absolutely right, at the wide end 1mm is meaningful, and having it open to 16mm would make sacrificing the 14-15 a little bit easier.

Regarding why not the f/4, I shoot concerts w/crappy lighting, so would like the f/2.8.

 

[Ruahrc]

The difference between 16 and 17mm on an FX body is about 4 degrees in the horizontal FOV (96.7 vs 93.3). If that matters a lot to you, then I guess it matters. But I feel that you're making a bigger deal of it than it really would be.

I don't have experience with concerts, but from what I have done of indoor shooting, if these concerts have crappy lighting, it is likely that even f2.8 is going to be inadequate- despite with the high ISO of a FX body, unless perhaps you're also getting the D3s. Maybe you need to look at the 24mm f1.4- not as wide as you'd like but it has the speed you're probably going to need.

Ruahrc

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

I am not sure where you are going to be standing at these concerts, but unless you plan to be in your subject's face with a 14-24, wouldn't something with a little more range be more practical?

14-24mm is similar to a DX 11-16mm (which I have) and the "zoom" is useless on that lens. You really have to be in the right place to use that lens. Just my $0.02 from somebody who knows nothing about concerts.

PS: for travel photography, I'd definitely want the 16-35 VR.

 

[Shacklebolt]

I am not sure where you are going to be standing at these concerts, but unless you plan to be in your subject's face with a 14-24, wouldn't something with a little more range be more practical?

14-24mm is similar to a DX 11-16mm (which I have) and the "zoom" is useless on that lens. You really have to be in the right place to use that lens. Just my $0.02 from somebody who knows nothing about concerts.

PS: for travel photography, I'd definitely want the 16-35 VR.

Yeah, I just wish that the 16-35 were a bit faster - also, I've read some dodgy things about distortion wide open. The 14-24 is definitely a "specialty" lens, so I'm shying away from it in favor of perhaps the 17-35 f/2.8. I'm just trying to find Nikon's effectively fastest super-wide.

 

[compuwar]

So my lenses are 24-70, and 70-200... need a wide angle, but very torn.

You may want to shoot with your 24-70 for a while before you jump into anything else. I find myself around 35mm pretty often with my D3x for landscapes, and I stitch if the wind cooperates if I need wider, because otherwise I tend to have way too much sky.

Paul

 

[Shacklebolt]

You may want to shoot with your 24-70 for a while before you jump into anything else. I find myself around 35mm pretty often with my D3x for landscapes, and I stitch if the wind cooperates if I need wider, because otherwise I tend to have way too much sky.

Paul

Ha - well if that's the route I pursue, I might as well just sell my D300, and use the money I save on the lens to buy the D3s instead.

(Only <24mm I have right now is a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DX).

 

[mdatwood]

If you're looking for UW then the Nikon 14-24 is pretty much the best lens there is. I've read some reviews that play around with saying it's one of the best lenses ever made.

I've used a friends 14-24 (waaay too expensive for me ), and it does take great pics. I will say though that framing shots with an UW is a skill different from any other type of lens. My mindset changes from what can I fit in this shot to how can I get rid of all this other stuff.

 

[compuwar]

Ha - well if that's the route I pursue, I might as well just sell my D300, and use the money I save on the lens to buy the D3s instead.

(Only <24mm I have right now is a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DX).

If I were you, I'd very seriously consider it. The D3s will shoot in ~1/4 the light of the D700. You might want to rent a D3s for a few days and try it out- both for the high-ISO and for the 24-70mm.

The only time I've pulled my 20-35mm out in the last three months has been when I've needed to shoot close to a building or when I've set it at 35mm- in which case my 35-70 was good enough. If I shot a lot of "mountains in the distance with lots of interesting foreground" type landscapes, then I could see going to 20mm, but I think I'd probably just stitch those too if it wasn't too windy.

I'd love to have a D3s for the creative possibilities that the high-ISO capabilities open up. I wouldn't trade my D3x for one though!

Remember, that 24-70@24mm on FX is going to look like 16mm does on your D300- iow wider than your current widest lens.

If you really have a bad case of NAS, then I'd suggest a 300/4.

Paul