Need Recommendation: Nikon Wide Angle Lens

MDalby

Any recommendation for a cost conscious buyer... I am looking for a good wide angle lens for full frame? I don't want to break the bank.

Thanks,

MD

ziggy53

A prime lens or a zoom lens?

What are your primary applications for the lens?

dixonduke

I love my Tonkina 11-16mm 2.8

MDalby

I am not sure if I want a prime or zoom. It would be for portraits of large groups like a football team or for a unique look on the basketball court.

insanefred

dixonduke wrote: »

I love my Tonkina 11-16mm 2.8

Please read the OP before posting?

MDalby wrote: »

I am not sure if I want a prime or zoom. It would be for portraits of large groups like a football team or for a unique look on the basketball court.

Idealy, the Nikon 14-24mm, and unique look would be the 16mm fish eye. I have used the 16-35mm VR lens with great results for landscapes. Another great choice might be the 17-35 f/2.8.And if you're really on the budget, give the Nikon 20mm 2.8 a good look.

Dreadnote

Define "break the bank?"

dixonduke

insanefred wrote: »

Please read the OP before posting?

Totally missed "full frame"... My most humble apologies for my failed ability to comprehend the basics of reading. I will try to be better in the future.

MDalby

dixonduke wrote: »

Totally missed "full frame"... My most humble apologies for my failed ability to comprehend the basics of reading. I will try to be better in the future.

NP, I appreciate the effort.

ARKreations

I don't think you could do any better than the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It is a bit of a bank-breaker, but it's an incredible lens.

Matthew Saville

dixonduke wrote: »

Totally missed "full frame"... My most humble apologies for my failed ability to comprehend the basics of reading. I will try to be better in the future.

Don't apologize 100%, ...the Tokina 11-16 is one of full-frame's sharpest 16mm lenses available! Slap that 11-16 on a D700 and keep it at 16mm, and you have the world's ONLY 16mm prime that hits f/2.8 and accepts front filters.

By comparison, the 14-24 is massive, expensive, and has a ridiculously vulnerable front element. The 17-35 is a bit more affordable although still hundreds more, much heavier, and not perfectly sharp nor does it even reach 16mm.

All in all I do highly recommend the 11-16 to anyone who shoots with both formats; it is the perfect companion to anyone who shoots on a D300 + D700 like myself and I have tested it a number of times and hope to get one sooner than later.


For someone who only shoots on full-frame though, I suppose my recommendation has to go to the 17-35 2.8, or the 16-35 f/4 VR. If you're shooting more landscapes / stills and less action, the 16-35 is probably a great buy. If you're shooting more action of course, consider the extra stop of TRUE shutter speed "advantage". Oppositely, I would only consider the 14-24 if you've truly, truly fallen in love with the ultra-wide perspective, you plan to milk every last ounce of performance out of your ultra-wide images, AND you can take the precautions necessary to avoid scratching that huge front element.

Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make some sort of 17-35 or 20-35 ultra-wide, but they're all either variable aperture, or cheaper construction, or much less sharp, etc. etc.

Good luck deciding, BTW!

=Matt=

Zerodog

For a prime lens and a pretty cheap one at that, I really like my Nikon 20mm. Has a bit of distortion on an FX body but it is wicked sharp. Got mine for $300. It is small and light too. I figure by my backwards focal length standards, when using it on an FX body it looks like a 13mm would on DX. That is wicked wide without being a fisheye.

For zoom? How wide? The 24-70 is pretty wide. It is my go to all purpose lens on my D3s. The nikon version is expensive, but it is really sharp and fast focus. People seem to like the sigma version as well. It is also a lot less money. You would use a 24-70 a lot too. Wider? The 14-24 gets great reviews but I haven't tried one myself. The downside is it is $$$.

cmadness

For landscapes and things that don't move go for the nikon 16-35 VR. For everything else hold out for the 14-24. IMHO.

Oh and hello from a fellow Parker-en.

snakephoto

I use the Rokinon (Samyang) 14 f2.8, its rugged, very sharp, and a pleasure to shoot with... I compliment it with a Nikon 20mm F2.8.....I do not own the Tokina but I think its also a great lense. If you shoot DX, a 14mm may not be wide enough.

Cheers