I need advice on a wide angle lens for a D3

kgarrett11

I recently got my new D3 and am interested in getting a wide angle lens for a trip to Yellowstone and Grand Teton. I don't want a fisheye. Can anyone recommend a lens that would suite the bill?

ziggy53

For primes:

Nikkor 14mm, f/2.8D ED
Nikkor 24mm, f/2.8D or 28mm, f/2.8D


Zoom:

Nikkor 17-35mm, f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

I suggest the 14mm, f/2.8D ED and then the 17-35mm, f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S would give you a pretty versatile landscape kit.

Also consider the Nikkor 24mm, f/3.5D ED PC-E if you wish to stitch multiple images.

kgarrett11

ziggy53 wrote:

For primes:

Nikkor 14mm, f/2.8D ED
Nikkor 24mm, f/2.8D or 28mm, f/2.8D


Zoom:

Nikkor 17-35mm, f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

I suggest the 14mm, f/2.8D ED and then the 17-35mm, f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S would give you a pretty versatile landscape kit.

Also consider the Nikkor 24mm, f/3.5D ED PC-E if you wish to stitch multiple images.

Thanks Ziggy, I was thinking about the 24mm. I thought that the 14mm is a fisheye.

ziggy53

kgarrett11 wrote:

Thanks Ziggy, I was thinking about the 24mm. I thought that the 14mm is a fisheye.

That's not how Nikon labels it:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=1925

It does have that bulbous front-end.

Robinivich

If you've got money to burn, the new nikon 14-24 is supposed to be god's gift to ultra-wides, supposedly beats the pants off every other prime or zoom of either canon or nikon. Of course, the money to burn part should be taken literally, and lens caps and filters are tricky and impossible, respectively. Just thought I'd throw that out there

tetrode

Robinivich wrote:

If you've got money to burn, the new nikon 14-24 is supposed to be god's gift to ultra-wides, supposedly beats the pants off every other prime or zoom of either canon or nikon. Of course, the money to burn part should be taken literally, and lens caps and filters are tricky and impossible, respectively. Just thought I'd throw that out there

I most assuredly don't have "money to burn" but I do have both the D3 and the new 14-24mm. This is absolutely a match made in heaven. This new zoom has been shown to outperform the fixed focal length 14mm f/2.8 at its wide end and the optical excellence continues right through the range. Also note the price differential between the 14mm fixed and 14-24mm zoom is negligible. B&H shows $1420 vs. $1590 for the US versions of each. The D3 mated with the 14-24mm and the new 24-70mm is about as good as it gets (yes, I also have the 24-70mm).

If you don't want to spring for the new wide zoom, consider the 17-28mm f/2.8 AF-S. A mint, used copy can be had for around $900 or so. This is also a spectacular lens that has the added benefits of allowing use of filters (no filters can be used with the 14-24mm) and having an aperture ring (providing backward compatibility with older Nikon camera bodies).


Dave F.

FedererPhoto

I can second the 14-24... very highly regarded by anyone that's ever used it. Unless you need wider than 14, there is no need to look any further.

Robinivich

tetrode wrote:

I most assuredly don't have "money to burn"

All is relative, of course, these two items do essentially equate to a year of school for myself

kgarrett11

Thanks everyone. Right now I don't see a need for anything wider than 14mm. I want to get a non-DX lens that I can get good pictures of mountains but also that I might be able to stitch in PS if I really want to go wider.

Robinivich

With regards to panorama (just speaking from knowledge sucked up from a lot of forums, and a little experience) I'm going to guess that to go wider than 14, most people wouldn't try stitching wide lenses, as the distortion characteristics are seldom that great, though there are exceptions.

You probably want a somewhat longer lens with low distortions for painless panos (I've used a 50 f1.8 with modest results). Honestly, there's a big difference to my mind between 14mm and a pano, there's very little a 14mm doesn't take in, whereas in a pano you're often going for a very specific slice of landscape.

kgarrett11

Robinivich wrote:

With regards to panorama (just speaking from knowledge sucked up from a lot of forums, and a little experience) I'm going to guess that to go wider than 14, most people wouldn't try stitching wide lenses, as the distortion characteristics are seldom that great, though there are exceptions.

You probably want a somewhat longer lens with low distortions for painless panos (I've used a 50 f1.8 with modest results). Honestly, there's a big difference to my mind between 14mm and a pano, there's very little a 14mm doesn't take in, whereas in a pano you're often going for a very specific slice of landscape.

Thanks, that is one of the things that I wanted to investigate. I knew that with cheaper glass that I couldn't stitch but wasn't sure with the more expensive glass.