UWA options

A place for us to talk about Nikon related camera gear.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.

UWA options

Postby Geoff M on Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:00 pm

The widest lens option I currently have for FX is my 24-120 f4 and now looking for something wider. I have been looking at the Nikon 16-35 f4, 20 2.8D prime,16mm fisheye and the older 20-35 f2.8D and 17-35 f2.8AFS My problem is I have given myself too many options and cant make a decision. Anyone had experience of these lenses, or dare I say it, can recommend any other options? (excluding the Nikon 14-24 2.8 - too expensive for the number of times I anticipate using a lens of this type).
Fuji X-Pro1 | X-E1 | X-T1 | XF14 | XF23 | XF27 | XF35 | XF56 | XF60 | XF10-24 | XF18-55 | XF55-200 | MCEX-11

http://gmarshall.zenfolio.com

http://xtographer.weebly.com
User avatar
Geoff M
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: Tamborine Mountain QLD.

Re: UWA options

Postby chrisk on Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:09 pm

Geoff M wrote:The widest lens option I currently have for FX is my 24-120 f4 and now looking for something wider. I have been looking at the Nikon 16-35 f4, 20 2.8D prime,16mm fisheye and the older 20-35 f2.8D and 17-35 f2.8AFS My problem is I have given myself too many options and cant make a decision. Anyone had experience of these lenses, or dare I say it, can recommend any other options? (excluding the Nikon 14-24 2.8 - too expensive for the number of times I anticipate using a lens of this type).


well they're kinda not the same sorts of lens' really, especially the fisheye. i looked at all of these options aswell when i was going ultrawide.

the 17-35 and 16-35 are the best of the bunch optically, you couldnt go wrong with either really.
the 20D is very good but has a bit of vignetting and CA you have to deal with. but very small and light.
dont know anything about the 20-35
EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75 l AW1 l V3
User avatar
chrisk
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3317
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: Oyster Bay, Sydney

Re: UWA options

Postby Reschsmooth on Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:54 pm

I have only had experience with the 17-35 and focus, IQ and handling is brilliant.
Regards, Patrick

Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Re: UWA options

Postby aim54x on Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:56 pm

There are a few choices.....
-17-35/16-35 if you want a zoom that you can filter, as Chris noted, both are excellent lenses. I would forget the 20-35 as they are hard to come by and it has been awhile since I have seen one come through 2nd hand in good nick (I opted for the 17-35 personally)
-20mm prime....if you are not scared of MF then I would point you towards the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II (I own and love this lens and it has been in constant use)
-16mm fisheye.....only if you want a fisheye, Greg owns this lens...I own its Russian cousin (Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 MF)

If you were after other options then I would consider the Nikkor AF 18-35 as a relatively inexpensive and lightweight alternative to the 17-35/16-35.
Cameron
Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42
Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura Black
Scout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
User avatar
aim54x
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: Penshurst, Sydney

Re: UWA options

Postby Remorhaz on Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:15 pm

Hi Geoff - I've been basically considering the same thing.

I've been trying Ray's 16-35 for the past few weeks and I also had a go with Cam's 17-35 the other day. I seriously considered a second hand 20/2.8D last week - all primarily for landscape use and then secondarily for my other uses (like events, indoors low light, stars?). I'd also be interested in the Sigma 15mm fish (not to compete with the above however - just as an additional special purpose option).

OK so what have I decided... whilst I like the 2.8 of the 17-35 realistically I'd probably only ever use that for stars type shots - for everything else (except build?) the 16-35 is better - it's much cheaper (AU street prices), sharper (edges), has VR, goes wider (although 16mm is pretty distorted and with my Lee filters+CPL I use it vignettes at 16 & 17 anyway). So potentially considering something like the 15/2.8 fish or a cheap 20/2.8 for stars and the 16-35 for everything else I do.
D600, D7000, Nikon/Sigma/Tamron Lenses, Nikon Flashes, Sirui/Manfrotto/Benro Sticks
Rodney - My Photo Blog
Want: Fast Wide (14|20|24)
User avatar
Remorhaz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Lower North Shore - D600

Re: UWA options

Postby Mj on Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:32 pm

I went for a 16-35/4 after some consideration for the 14-24.
Just a more practical lens for my use. I decided the VR for hand held, and filter thread, was worth more to me than the faster aperture.
Photography is not a crime, but perhaps my abuse of artistic license is?
User avatar
Mj
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:37 pm
Location: Breakfast Point, Sydney {Australia}

UWA options

Postby Geoff M on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:59 pm

Thanks for the feedback guys, I am leaning toward the 16-35 f4, may try and hire one locally for a weekend.
Fuji X-Pro1 | X-E1 | X-T1 | XF14 | XF23 | XF27 | XF35 | XF56 | XF60 | XF10-24 | XF18-55 | XF55-200 | MCEX-11

http://gmarshall.zenfolio.com

http://xtographer.weebly.com
User avatar
Geoff M
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: Tamborine Mountain QLD.


Return to Nikon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests