Wide Angle lens for Nikon D700

[Deerfield]

I need a wide angle lens for my Nikon D700. I had to sell my superb Nikkor 12-24mm wide lens because it was a DX format.
I need a wide angle lens desperately!!!! But I have 2 choices:

1. Wait until I've saved up enough $$$$ to buy the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (big bucks)
2. Buy a third party wide angle lens and have one to use much sooner!

As I've always used Nikkor lenses I'm not very familiar with third party ones. I know Sigma have a wide angle one that would be suitable but there may be others out there that I'm not aware of.

Any help/recommendations would be much appreciated!

[I @ M]

I need a wide angle lens desperately!!!!

(big bucks)


The two go together unfortunately.

If desperate overrides the wallet simply buy the best ---- AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED (http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=1185-0ceca47364)

If the wallet overrides desperate ---- wait and go picture less. :(

Welcome to AP by the way. :)

[kiwi]

You didnt have to sell the 12-24, it would have worked fine on DX format :xmas31:

Anyhow.

I have a 20mm F2.8, wide enough for me

Most UWA's are very good, third party or not

[mongo]

be smart. if you do not need a zoom, get a nice second hand 20mm f2.8. Mongo has an old AIs manual model - great pictures - few hundred bucks Or later models even in short zooms - still very inexpensive or just buy the model you mentioned second hand !

[MarkW]

Just to add the other side of the equation, I have the 17-35mm and its really worth the bucks once you finally get them together. Its the lens that virtually never left the camera during 4 weeks in UK, France and Belgium.

[dmdigital]

Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 is fantastic on FX!

But I'd have to go along with the idea of the 20mm prime or the 17-35 f/2.8 as suitable and less expensive alternatives.

[N*A*M]

18-35 if money is really tight?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/846954

[Wayne]

I have the AFS 17-35 2.8 Nikkor and it is tack sharp even wide open. worth every dollar. I wonder though how long it will be before Nikon update and supersede it as it has been about since '99 I think.

Lighter than 14-24 and more versatile with the longer focal length. One major drawback to the 14-24 is the inability to use filters. This leaves that bulbous front element exposed, and of course CPL or GND is something you no longer have at your disposal. The 14-24 is arguably the sharpest lens Nikon have produced to date, but no filter is what really turned me off.

[Sar NOP]

I need a wide angle lens for my Nikon D700. I had to sell my superb Nikkor 12-24mm wide lens because it was a DX format.
I need a wide angle lens desperately!!!! But I have 2 choices:

1. Wait until I've saved up enough $$$$ to buy the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (big bucks)
2. Buy a third party wide angle lens and have one to use much sooner!


If you use the lens at f/8-f/11 and filtre on it most of the time, any wide angle will be sharp enough for you. So get the cheapest one !

A few months ago, I bought a 14-24/2.8 and use it at f/2.8 in 99.9% of time (I hate using filtre on any of my lens !). This is an incredible zoom lens !!!

[Redgum]

I'm with DM. Having both the 14-24 and the 17-35, an FX and DX camera I love the 14-24 on FX but somehow it's not as good on the D300. The 17-35 is a more useful lens.
For the crop camera the 17-55 is outstanding.

[Wayne]

Just to add the other side of the equation, I have the 17-35mm and its really worth the bucks once you finally get them together. Its the lens that virtually never left the camera during 4 weeks in UK, France and Belgium.


couldn't agree more, just had 2 weeks in Japan, and for almost the entire time, it never left the D700.

[darkc]

I invested in a 14-24mm f2.8 a few months ago and I use a D700 also. I have to say I am simply amazed at how good this lens is. It has not been off my camera since I have had it, and i never use the 24mm end. I shoot mainly land/seascapes and have found that the cokin xpro series filter system works well with the universal adapter.

If you can afford the 14-24mm you will not be disappointed. Have you considered the new 16-35mm f4 VR?

[TerminalVeloCD]

If you're after a compromise between portability, quality and price, the new 16-35mm VR might be the right lens for you.

[gaidin]

I just dont get what gap the 16-35mm was meant to fill? Its not that much cheaper OR smaller/lighter than the 17-35.

I sold my 17-35 to fund the D700 purchase and have regretted it ever since. Ive got to buy back into UWA now and still torn between the 14-24 and just grabbing another 17-35 :)

The upcoming Lee filter system for the 14-24 might just sway me that way I think!

[Redgum]

If it's any help Gaidin my 17-35 spends more time on the full frame cameras than the 14-24. The extra 11mm at the tight end is practical.

[gaidin]

Thanks Redgum, youre not making this any easier :p

My head says go with the 17-35 and take the savings on the filter system that I get with that lens...but that 14-24 is just so tack sharp and 14mm is pretty damn wide!!

[Redgum]

Haha!!! Like any love affair you need to see past the first embrace. :love:

[Ace55]

A pro let me borrow his 14-24mm to use on my D300. Absolutely fabulous lens - brilliant quality and build (but as you can't fit a UV filter on the front you have to be very careful!). He uses it on a D700 and loves it - sharp all the way through the image. I'm going to wait and save my pennies - I'd rather do that and get a top lens than compromise.

[ricktas]

I have the 17-35 and its a great lens, but my next purchase will be the 14-24 cause I want the extra width.

[gaidin]

I have the 17-35 and its a great lens, but my next purchase will be the 14-24 cause I want the extra width.

Thats where I got to. But then I started adding up the cost of a custom filter system + filters...and it starts becoming a VERY expensive 3mm to achieve!!!

ps. Redgum, I love the analogy haha

[Redgum]

It's easy for me to say (having both lens) but it takes a lot to justify that extra 3mm which cost you more than $2k. Unless you're doing lots of real estate/indoor stuff then the 17-35 is more than adequate and equally as sharp.
For example, I did a school formal, 250 students, and the 17-35 was more than adequate for the wide shots and certainly more useful for general shots where the 14-24 was too wide.
The 14-24 was designed for the three lens market - 14-24, 24-70 & 70-200 and if that's the way you want to go it makes sense but alone the 17-35 is more versatile.

[gaidin]

Yes I think I may have got caught up in the "trinity" mentality a little too.

Given I also have the 35/2 and 50/1.4 Im even starting to think I could live without the 24-70 and should just sell that to fund the 17-35 purchase...too many decisions!!!

That actually leaves quite a well balanced kit at 17-35/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 to have in the pack at all times....plus the special purpose 105/2 DC, 300/2.8 and a Macro based on each shoot.

[vqscorpions]

for me, after a long time of using zoom, i start hating using zoom as the quality is always less than the prime, even the prime is very cheap.

so, I bought 20mm for the wide angle and 14mm for super wide angle.

personally, I love 28-200mm AF G as it is really sharp and cheap one, very useful to walk around.

for me, 28-70mm AF-S is not good, it just has high aperture, but the quality is bad in comparing with prime. I intend to sell that one quickly.

[gaidin]

so, I bought 20mm for the wide angle and 14mm for super wide angle.


do you mean the 14/2.8 prime? Isnt that one only a few hundred dollars cheaper than the 14-24 and only just on par quality-wise though?

[Redgum]

You're right, Gaidin. Primes are not necessarily better than zooms and it would be hard to compare cheap primes to expensive zooms. In the case of the 14mm the zoom is superior even though they are the same price and of course with the prime you are limited to one focal length.
Most of the blokes I work with around the world are pretty much settled on good quality zooms and apart from the 50mm rarely carry any other primes (Nikon wise anyway). Different brands, different results.

[antongorlin]

why is it impossible to use filters on 14-24?

[Redgum]

The 14-24 has a convex lens which literally pokes out past the front of the barrel (without lens hood). You can attach Z series filters but the optics are not conducive.

[gaidin]

Not impossible, just very difficult.

It has a permanently attached "flower-shaped" hood, a bulging front element that extends out a long way, and no thread for standard filters.

The only options at the moment and "ghetto" style homegrown filter holders…or Lee have an upcoming product that will fit the lens but uses non-standard size filters.

[darkc]

I have this lens and use the cokin x pro series filter holder with universal adapter, it takes 130mm x 170mm size filters. I haven't experienced any vignetting yet even at 14mm. I have been using Lee ND filters with it, they make x pro sized filters. The holder and filters are quite large and the attachment method to the lens hood seems a bit flimsy but once on it's quite firm. It does suffer reflections through the gap between the hood and the adapter but hey, that's easily fixed with a peace of cloth or something to fill the gap.

[vqscorpions]

i used Nikon 15mm Q.D C f/5.6, then I got Sigma 14mm AF-D EX f/2.8. I decided to sell 15mm Nikon and use Sigma 14mm f/2.8.

This one is quite cheap and the results just are very very good enough on both of my DX and FX bodies.