Nikon Super Wide - Which Would You Buy?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/05/2006 01:40:47 AM · #3

I'll admit my noobness but I almost always lean towards the speed of the glass being more important than the focal length, especially with small differences like this (even after the sensor crop it is only 3mm).

I say go for the 14mm as it will be much more useful in a variety of lighting conditions. Not to mention the smaller DOF the 2.8 will give you (more creative possibilities).

petrakka

03/05/2006 01:42:04 AM · #4

ive been thinkin about this too. I would shy away from the 14 mm for a few reasons...its not as wide...and 2.8 at 14 mm isnt usually super necessary. u can handhold a shot a like 1/20 of a sec when its so wide...
my buddy has the 14 mm and uses is on his d70 and d2h all the time and digs it...but it just doesnt seem all that wide.

ive actually been thinkin bout the nikon vs tokina 12-24.

I know of professionals who buy the tokina cuz they say its like the same in quality but half the price. I don't like going third party but I think in this instance I will eventually get the tokina, cuz no one seems to think the nikon is any better.

cools98

Canon EOS R5 Mark II

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM

03/05/2006 01:47:58 AM · #5

Obviously 3mm would make some of a difference, as would the difference in DOF available. Would it be possible for someone who has 12-24 lens to post some tripod taken pictures at 12mm and 14mm to see the difference?

03/05/2006 08:54:49 AM · #6

I've never owned the Nikon 14mm, but I've have owned the Sigma 14mm f3.5 & 2.8 & the Nikkor 12-24. The 12-24 is a highly functional lens that you will use often. The 14mm is more esoteric, and on DX sensored cameras a major compromise. What you would have is a 21mm equivalent lens that is heavy, only gel filterable, and more sensitive to flare with its huge front element.

The 12-24 can use regular screw-in filters, most importantly a circular polarizer. It also covers a very useful range. I too, wish Nikon would come out with a faster wide angle
zoom or better yet prime, in fact it was a primary factor for going Olympus (11-22mm f2.8-3.5), but the Nikkor 12-24 is much less a compromise than the 14mm. (I do plan on coming back to Nikon when I can afford the D200)

Also for the price of the 14mm you could get the Nikkor 12-24 & sigma 14mm (of Nikkor 10mm f2.8 & defish via software).

Nuno

Nikon D700

03/05/2006 09:08:41 AM · #7

Well the Nikon 10.5mm f2.8 is indeed very wide. It's the widest lens avaiable for cropped sensord if you exclude the cicular fisheyes avayable.

I am analizing the possibilities of a uwa lens and I confess that I'm not very found of the Nikon 12-24mm. If your not a Nikon only person I think that the sigma 10-20mm is the way to go in uwa terms, if you need a zoom in this range. And the 12-24mm it also gets a lot of good reviews and is a full fram (might be inportant if somehone has film cameras) but it doesen't take front filters withought serious vignetting.

And about the 10.5 nikon.? I would love this baby for creativity and wideness, but I don't know if one can justify the price for a fettish lens. :)

03/05/2006 09:10:31 AM · #8

Originally posted by traquino98:

Not tripod mounted (or even decent photos), but taken with the Nikkor 12-24 @ 12mm & 14mm from the same perspective.

12mm

14mm

I hope you can see that 3mm in this range is huge compared to say 24-27mm range.

03/05/2006 09:21:18 AM · #9

Originally posted by Nuno:

And the 12-24mm it also gets a lot of good reviews and is a full fram (might be inportant if somehone has film cameras) but it doesen't take front filters withought serious vignetting.

The Nikkor 12-24 IS NOT full frame, but is a DX lens made for the 1.5 crop sensored cameras. That being said, I've shot it on my Nikon film cameras without vignetting from about 18mm-24mm (depending on aperature). It is actually as sharp @ 24mm as my 24mm prime. Front filters work fine with the lens. Stacking filters might cause vignetting , but I wouldn't stack filters even it didn't for quality issues.

03/05/2006 09:26:49 AM · #10

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

The Nikkor 12-24 IS NOT full frame, but is a DX lens made for the 1.5 crop sensored cameras.

This is what I was thinking, the 12-24 is a DX lens which should give you a true 12-24 with digital but the 14 is a full frame which should be X1.5. I have the 12-24, just bought it last month, and it is a very nice lens.

Nuno

Nikon D700

03/05/2006 09:29:42 AM · #11

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Originally posted by Nuno:
And the 12-24mm it also gets a lot of good reviews and is a full fram (might be inportant if somehone has film cameras) but it doesen't take front filters withought serious vignetting.

The Nikkor 12-24 IS NOT full frame, but is a DX lens made for the 1.5 crop sensored cameras. That being said, I've shot it on my Nikon film cameras without vignetting from about 18mm-24mm (depending on aperature). It is actually as sharp @ 24mm as my 24mm prime. Front filters work fine with the lens. Stacking filters might cause vignetting , but I wouldn't stack filters even it didn't for quality issues.

I was talking about the sigma 12-24mmm. Not the nikon

Nuno

Nikon D700

03/05/2006 09:32:02 AM · #12

My two possibilities right know are:

Change my 10-70mm Nikon for a Sigma 24-70mm and buy a 12-24mm (probably also sigma).

Or keep the kit lens and buy a sigma 10-20mm or the 10.5mm for wideness.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

03/05/2006 10:20:02 AM · #13

What would you gain with the 12-24 sigma? With the 1.5 factor at 12 mm you would be back to 18 mm which is equal to the kit lens, at least that was my thinking.

msieglerfr

Nikon D200

03/05/2006 10:40:25 AM · #14

If you have enough money, buy the nikon 12-24mm. Otherwise, your second choice will be:

Sigma 10-22mm or the Tokina 12-24mm.

Avoid the Tamron 11-18mm, it is a piece 'crap' in terms of built quality and sharpness.

Message edited by author 2006-03-05 10:40:56.

03/05/2006 03:01:36 PM · #15

Originally posted by jrtodd:

What would you gain with the 12-24 sigma? With the 1.5 factor at 12 mm you would be back to 18 mm which is equal to the kit lens, at least that was my thinking.

the kit lens is 18-70 so it has the 35mm equivelent of 27.5-105. the sigma 12-24 has an equiv. of 18-36. The industry is confusing newer photographers that never had experience with 35mm. The specs should be given in degree coverage instaed.

03/05/2006 06:25:41 PM · #16

Do the DX lens fall under the 1.5 factor as well? I am under the impression, right or wrong, that they do not.

03/05/2006 06:48:38 PM · #17

Alright, just went out side and tested, and they (DX vs old time 35 mm lens mounted on DSLR)are the same, guess I'm the only one who didn't know.

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

03/05/2006 08:59:09 PM · #18

Scott - here is what I already had uploaded using the Nikon 12-24 at various settings:

16mm

14mm

12mm

14mm w/ slight crop

15mm

Not all of these are the greatest shots but hope they help you make a decision. BTW - I use the whole range from 12-24 so my votes is for the zoom instead of the prime.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

03/05/2006 09:20:54 PM · #19

jrtodd. the crop factor is a function of the size of the sensor. As such, it is completely independent of the lens. ALL LENSES will need to have a crop factor of 1.5x regardless of whether they have been designed for digital or not. A lens is a peice of glass. A sensor is a peice of digital hardware that itself cannot change size, therefore crop factor is applied to all lenses.

When you are dealing with ultra-wide, 3mm can make a tremendous difference.

I read a nice article on www.nikonians.com about this issue.

They all seemed to be pretty clear that the 14mm was the first solution for the loss of wide angle. The 12-24 was playing in a whole other league.

They seemed to like the Nikkor lens best out of all four, but after reading the specifics, I would probably still go with the Tokina for Nikon.

Mostly because of price, but also because of logical usability.

I am the kind of guy who concentrates on one thing at a time (mostly because I'm a very new shooter), so I don't like being distracted by my equipment when I'm trying to take a picture (in fact, this is often a cause for me to mess up pictures and miss shots). The fact that the Nikkor has the focus and zoom rings in backwards order from other lenses makes me feel that I would be distracted or less comfortable using it. That might not be an issue for everyone.

Of course, I don't have this issue because I am going to go Canon and if I want wide, I've got the possibility of using the Canon 10-22.

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

03/05/2006 09:25:28 PM · #20

Originally posted by eschelar:

Of course, I don't have this issue because I am going to go Canon and if I want wide, I've got the possibility of using the Canon 10-22.

Ahh, but Nikon also makes a 10.5 f2.8

Nikon Fisheye 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor Autofocus Lens

Nikolai1024