Wide Angle Dreaming

[Xebadir]

Hey guys,
With a D700 now in my bag the wide angle world is now needing assessment to find an appropriate lens. As it stands I have a Sigma 10-20 so that just isn't going to cut it being the crop sensor design.

Before the Japanese earthquake I was looking at a 14-24mm Nikon F2.8 (and I am still am second-hand). Its the lens I want in the long run, but I am not going to be able to foot the nearly 2000 dollars (25% inflation ouch) for it after this event, and am tempted to hold the gun on it until this gets sorted.

This got me thinking about other lenses, and I came across the Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6. JM Tran had one for his canon (durign a wedding last year) which impressed me when I used it, I like the fact its the widest thing out there, and while without the cred of the 14-24 and seems to be a pretty well performing lens. Does anyone use one of these on a Nikon body, and what your thoughts on performance/comparison to other choices.

I did think at first of the 16-35, but the price issue is similar for it, but I don't believe this to be a wide enough lens for my purposes and for the effects I want to work with.

Now, the twist. Normally I would just wait....but I am heading to the states in early May for a month and bit of storm chasing and national parks as the pure focus (39 days) and to go without a wide for the D700 would be fairly criminal given its my favourite way to shoot. I've looked at renting the 14-24, but its just not worth it...going to run a bill of a grand for that sort of period. So any suggestion would be appreciated. (And alternatives to the above).

[Mr Lensbaby]

Sorry but their is no alternatives:cool:

[inmotion]

HI I have the lens and have shot on a D3S with mixed results
Very impressive for landscape/architecture but didtorts like mad close up
and a trap was the distortion seemed to be mostly vertical
cheers jim

[J.davis]

Have a look here - might be what you are after.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?61213-Tokina-16-28-F-2.8

[phild]

The 14-24 reviews very well, it's such a good lens that even Canon users are using it via adapters.

All the reports I've seen rate it sharper than either of Canon or Nikons 14mm primes and I know it's a popular lens for wide field Astronomy use.

I'd be holding out until the prices to come back down or looking second hand if you can find one for a reasonable price.

[I @ M]

John, we have just bought a Tokina 16-28, if you really need wider than the 16mm on offer with it then the Sigma 12-24 is going to be the only viable alternative to the Nikon 14-24.
I looked at the Sigma as well but the Tokina won due to it being a newer design, impressive distortion characteristics, faster aperture, excellent build quality and extremely good (local retail) pricing.
It was bought to have similar abilities on the FX body that the 10-20 Sigma has been used by us for on DX bodies for a few years now.
A quick comparison of the angle of view between the lenses brought it home that 16mm was going to replace the 10-20 Sigma adequately, especially after possibly losing a little from an image when correcting distortion on horizons etc.

Widest to narrowest at the shortest focal length by the manufacturer's specs.

Sigma 12-24 122º

Nikkor 14-24 114°

Tokina 16-28 107.11°

Nikkor 16-35 107º

Sigma 10-20 102.4º

If you were happy with the width that your 10-20 provided, any of the current crop of FX wide angles listed will give you (slightly to a fair bit) more width than you already had.

And an afterthought, the local retail price we paid was a dinner for two and quite a few beers at the local pub cheaper than DWI's price.

[wolffman]

Seeing as you have the 10-20 you should be able to turn off the d700 automatically switching to crop frame with the 10-20 and it should still give you a full frame coverage at about 18-20mm. It'll do for a stop gap measure.
Secong hand 17-35mm f2.8 is still worth looking at, especially if you are heading to the states anyway.
Duty free 16-35 would be another option

[Wayne]

Get one from the USA, plenty of new and used mint samples about. New around US$1600, mint used about US$1300-1400. Nikon recently had big rebates on lenses in the USA when you bought a body, so a few savvy folk bought a body and a heap of lenses they didn't need, sold the body for $50 less than new price, and then sold the lenses for perhaps $100-150 less than new retail price, when they got upwards of $200-300 discount per lens when buying through that rebate, so they make a small few $$.

Plenty of 14-24's floating about right now that were bought this way.

PM your email address t me if you want me to steer you in the direction.

[MATT]

My 2cents

When I got the D700 I was looking for a wide option.

I went with a 12-24 Sigma. It was everything I hoped very wide and sharp.

At a later stage I was offered a 17-35 2.8 at a good price, it was very well used but the glass was perfect. It was a little more practical and spent more time on my D700.

Then came an opportunity to own a 14-24 Nikon second hand with no boxes or paper work but also at a to good a price to turn down.

So I had 3 good wide choices, something had to go. So I sold my 12-24 Sigma. Then the AF-s broke on my 17-35 and was $1k to repair. Luckily covered by insurance.

So currently I have the 14-24 and 17-35 Nikons. But in hind site I should have sold my 14-24 and kept the 12-24.Why?

Well the 14-24 rarely gets a run. It is to big to take in my bag when the 17-35 fits so nice. The 14-24 does not take a filter where the 17-35 takes standard filter sizes. The 14-24 is not that much wider than my 17-35. Where the 12-24 Sigma is heaps wider.

For the sake of balancing the budget of a hobby I should have sold on the 14-24 and kept the 12-24 Sigma .

The 14-24 does however have the most beautiful warmth and clarity in images.

I have not used the new 16-35.

Good luck whit your choice

MATT

[Wayne]

I have resisted the 14-24mm and kept my 17-35/2.8 which really is an awesome piece of WA glass.

[RRRoger]

I bought a Sigma 12-24 DG wide lens but sent it back when I compared it to the Nikkor 16-35 which I also sent back when compared to a used 17-35.
None of them are compare to the Nikkor 14-24. Only the 14 and 24mm primes are close and they cost more each.

There are a few used 14-24 Nikkors on the market due to the cost, weight, and filter issues.
I no longer use filters, but Lee makes one.

Mod edit:- Please refer to site rules regarding cross forum promotions.

[darkc]

I'd hold off until you can buy that 14-24mm f2.8. I have never looked back since I got mine and you can put filters on the lens.

[RRRoger]

You might consider a good stitching program and use a narrower lens.
Even though the 14-24 cannot be be beat, my favorite hiking lens is now the 28-300.
The Parks in the USA are really huge and much you would like to shoot is far away.
Bring a good TriPod or MonoPod.

[Xebadir]

Quite happy with my stitching solution (50 F1.8), I prefer to really work and control the distortion and DOF to my shooting advantage in using a wide angle. Not doing a huge number of parks (Western Co/East Utah, so Archers, Canyonlands, Co Nat Monument, and Great Sand Dunes), if we get out there (if storms are forecasting in the Alley this becomes a secondary objective, we are primarily stormchasers on our trip), and if necessary I can hike closer too. Really not a fan of superzooms, would rather carry a 50 F1.8 and a Wide Angle (my usual hiking/exploration kit). If I need a telephoto length I just go to a 70-300 VR if I really need telephoto lengths.

Basically now considering selling the Sigma off (keeping it was a bit of a luxury) and seeing if I can shift my D40 body, and using that to offset the price of a 14-24 F2.8. So if anyone wants to offload one look me up :P. Will keep hunting. Thanks for all the advice and info guys.

[RRRoger]

Quite happy with my stitching solution (50 F1.8), I prefer to really work and control the distortion and DOF to my shooting advantage in using a wide angle. Not doing a huge number of parks (Western Co/East Utah, so Archers, Canyonlands, Co Nat Monument, and Great Sand Dunes), if we get out there (if storms are forecasting in the Alley this becomes a secondary objective, we are primarily stormchasers on our trip), and if necessary I can hike closer too. Really not a fan of superzooms, would rather carry a 50 F1.8 and a Wide Angle (my usual hiking/exploration kit). If I need a telephoto length I just go to a 70-300 VR if I really need telephoto lengths.
.

You are going to miss the 3 best Parks: Grand Canyon, South Rim; Yellowstone; Yosemite; and my favorite Pinnacles National Monument.

Check my pictures if you want: http://www.assuredphoto.com/photocart/

* removed- site rule breach- trading of gear is not allowed on AP, including hiring*

[Xebadir]

Quite familiar with the everyone does national parks thanks, besides I prefer Antelope and Zion. Done the normal stuff...ive done GC twice, first time was at 5, been to Yosemite twice as well. Maybe will do again when I feel like it, but its a low priority. Yellowstone is completely over-rated. Did that last year for four days at the tail of the trip, wouldn't waste my time again...its ok but nothing super exceptional...most of the geological stuff is available in NZ without the ridiculously long drive up to Wyoming, and the animals are rather sad when you see clouds of people descend with 600 F4s. I also don't intend to go to Califorinia, as I said this is a slight side trip when the priority to photograph things which blow the mind (quite literally). I can't say i'd be happy with the photos you have from the respective national parks, but thats you choice and style so good for you. Ill stick going to different places, and exploring different options rather than the relatively dull and boring (NB you should try Devil's Tower National Monument).

[RRRoger]

Been thru Wyoming but missed Devils Tower.
Most of my picture taking is when I am waiting for my wife to catch up on a hike.
Never really had much time to dial in my photos or take a sunrise/sunset etc.
Good luck "chasing the wind".