FX Wide Angle Lenses That Don't Cost a Fortune?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Tokina makes the 11-16 f2.8 only in DX format. In my brief searching I've only found similar lenses in FX format that cost a lot more. Is there a reasonably priced wide-angle lens with good build & IQ that doesn't cost a fortune out there?

Plotting my eventual upgrade to a D600...

[systemoverblow'd]

All I know Is I can shoot that at 16mm on FF as long as I don't use the hood. The flare sucks on it though. See most recent MPC (every pic I posted).

[arild]

Sigma 12-24 is pretty great. Having only used the old version a lot,I can only guess that the new one is better. If you can "struggle" through manual focus and aperture,I've heard nothing but good things about the samyang 14mm. Nice build,too.

Norsk.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

That Sigma's still pretty pricey (compared to the Tokina) and not even a fixed aperture.

Guess you gotta pay to play in the FX world...

[arild]

Good full frame optics are, in general, expensive, yes. There are exceptions.

If you need fixed aperture, your options are limited to the Nikkor 14-24/2.8, which probably is your most expensive option, the Tokina 16-28/2.8, which isn´t dirt cheap either, or a 14/2.8 prime from either Nikon, Sigma, Tamron or Samyang. Zeiss makes a 15/2.8, and that´s not quite cheap either, but supposed to be extremely good.

I´d go for the Samyang if money is an issue. Manual focus on a 14/2.8 lens isn´t really much of an issue, as depth of field is there all the time, except at minimum focus distance with wide open aperture. If really fucking wide is what you want, you´re either in shitty fisheye territory oooorr... in Sigmaland.

[AKgeoSkier]

Nikon 16-35 f/4 is a great lens, I know, I know, it's slow at f/4... but it's also a lot cheaper than a 14-24.

But yeah, DX lenses are cheaper because they use less glass, and especially in the wide angle world, it's a lot harder to get a nondistorted image with a 35mm frame - hence more cost.

right now I have a 20mm/2.8 nikon, and a 16mm/2.8 fisheye nikon for my wide angle side, and it works plenty good...

[outabounds]

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=...3323&_from=R40

[arild]

Look at Supermodel159´s thread. $340 for a high quality wide angle. Rokinon=Samyang.

[systemoverblow'd]

I loved my 2 roki's but they are manual focus and aperture. Not as big of a deal on an UWA but also not exactly what everyone is looking for.

[josef]

I agree with what everyone said. If you need auto focus just save up and getthe 14-24 nikkor. It is an incredible lens but will flatten your wallet. I personally have the rokinon 14mm and use it on a d600. The manual focus isn't a problem for me because I use it primarily for video. The focus indicator works fine for most still photos as well. Let me know if you decide to go the rokinon route because I may be looking to off load mine now to replace it with their new cine version.

You could always rent for a while also.

[systemoverblow'd]

You're buying into their new cine crap? EL OH EL.!

[josef]

I like the declicked aperture ring.

[systemoverblow'd]

It's so stupid to sell a lens like that just to change to an aperture ring without click stops. How often, especially on a 14mm are you adjusting aperture while shooting? I understand the want to buy those lenses if you're getting into it but you're at least the 10th moron I have talked to that wants to sell their current unit for the "new" cine lens. It's retarded.

[josef]

Often enough to not care about the 50 or so bucks I may loss by selling this one and getting the cine.

[Max Archer]

How wide?

Nikon's 20 2.8 is cheap and produces really nice results. 20's pretty damn wide on FF too, I haven't felt the need for anything beyond it. Reviews whine about the distortion but Lightroom/PS can correct it really well now so it doesn't really matter.

Here's a recent shot with it:


Corkscrew wide. by maximstensel, on Flickr

Plenty sharp, ok AF, not that it matters at 2.8 on a 20mm, and takes filters, unlike the 14-24.

[AKgeoSkier]

second on the 20/2.8 had a 16-35 but left it behind a lot for weight, now with the 20mm prime, it's pretty easy to throw it in a pocket.

[austriker]

I am actually in the same boat- just upgraded to a sweet new d700 and loved the tokina 11-16 on my d300.. From what I have read that lens is top notch especially for the price, and only the amazing 14-24 compares on FX.

I boiled down my search to the 16-35 f4 VR or 17-35 f2.8.. Basically sounds like everywhere I read the f4 VR is sharper even though its a bit cheaper but of course you lose on the 'stopping-power' of the 2.8 if you plan on shooting stuff in motion.. there are a few other options and I actually made up a little list in my searches that I will post..

I was thinking the 2.8 but now have rocked back to the f4 VR side as everyone says its IQ and sharpness is better and its weather sealed which is huge for me.


Tokina 16-28 f/2.8
$650-900, no filters
+comparable to 14-24, build quality
-front cap can fall off
-bulbous, heavy, no filters

Nikon 17-35 f/2.8
$850-1300, 77mm
+fast, sharp
-heavy, price, corners not as sharp wide open as 16-35
+short, excellent flare/ghosting characteristics
-AF could squeak, meaning soon failure
+BEST IQ (debatable), holds value, good build quality
+rated best by kenrockwell (which might be irrelevant)

Tokina 17-35mm f/4
$600-700, 82mm
82mm filters
+lowest distortion, build quality, tank build, smaller/lighter
-less sharp

Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR
$1110-1300, 77mm
+sharp, VR, corners quite sharp wide open
-long, focusing issues on d700
+lightest and cheapest
-small corner vignetting, lots distortion at 16mm
-weaker build quality

Nikon 20 f/2.8D
$350-570
+smallest, lightest
-corners weak

Nikon 24 f/2.8D
$290

[pointedem]

nikon 20-35 2.8D

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Thanks for putting that list together!

When I checked on the Tokina website they only list the 16-28 f2.8. That one and the 17-35 are backordered many places so I was thinking maybe they stopped making one or both of them.

[Max Archer]

austriker-

It depends exactly what you're doing, but, between the Nikkors, if you're not an on-the-job photojournalist, the 16-35 f/4 is probably the way to go. Hell, with ISOs these days, the 2.8 advantage of the 17-35 barely matters anyway. Build quality is basically the only real reason to go with the 17-35 now, unless you're shooting handheld in dark enough conditions that that one stop matters, or I guess if you're shooting up close to something at the midrange of the lens and want a slightly shallower depth of field.

[austriker]

austriker-

It depends exactly what you're doing, but, between the Nikkors, if you're not an on-the-job photojournalist, the 16-35 f/4 is probably the way to go. Hell, with ISOs these days, the 2.8 advantage of the 17-35 barely matters anyway. Build quality is basically the only real reason to go with the 17-35 now, unless you're shooting handheld in dark enough conditions that that one stop matters, or I guess if you're shooting up close to something at the midrange of the lens and want a slightly shallower depth of field.

Good points, an on-the-job photoj I am not.. I actually have started looking at prices for the f/4 after thinking about it more.. But first I need to sell my Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Nikon 16-85 VR (I have them listed a few places but anyone interested btw?)

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Thanks for the reccos on the 20-35 f2.8 but if I'm buying a zoom I want something that goes wider. The 20/2.8 prime looks good as does the 16-35 f4.

Nikon currently has both a 16-35/f4 and a 17-35/f2.8, neither of which are what I'd call moderately priced but the f4 is definitely cheaper. Maybe I can find a good deal on a used one or go with the Tokina 17-35/f4 which is still available through Ebay sellers.

austriker - sounds like we have a very similar setup. I have the D7000 with 50/1.8, 16-85 DX and 70-300 VR. I'll sell everything but the 50/1.8 and get the D600 with the 28-300 to start with, or keep the 70-300 and get one of the 24-85s or maybe the 24-120/f4.

Given the D600s high ISO performance, I don't think having an f4 lens is a big drawback for the kind of shooting I do 95% of the time.

[austriker]

Thanks for the reccos on the 20-35 f2.8 but if I'm buying a zoom I want something that goes wider. The 20/2.8 prime looks good as does the 16-35 f4.

Nikon currently has both a 16-35/f4 and a 17-35/f2.8, neither of which are what I'd call moderately priced but the f4 is definitely cheaper. Maybe I can find a good deal on a used one or go with the Tokina 17-35/f4 which is still available through Ebay sellers.

austriker - sounds like we have a very similar setup. I have the D7000 with 50/1.8, 16-85 DX and 70-300 VR. I'll sell everything but the 50/1.8 and get the D600 with the 28-300 to start with, or keep the 70-300 and get one of the 24-85s or maybe the 24-120/f4.

Given the D600s high ISO performance, I don't think having an f4 lens is a big drawback for the kind of shooting I do 95% of the time.

word, sounds like we are rocking nearly the same quiver. I ditched the D300 (well its now my backup) and absolutely love FX- I am sure you will too. I dont really have a midrange (just the 50mm f/1.4, the 50's are fantastic on FX) as I am looking to splash the dough on the UWA.

Good point on the ISO, I think the 600 is pretty similar to the 700; crazy how high we can push it.. I have heard the 24-120 f4 is just breathtaking as well, great range to cover with a constant fstop is a sure winner.. If only I had the dough.. maybe eventually..

What types of shooting do you do? you on flickr?

[AKgeoSkier]

If either of you are looking for the 24-120 f/4 let me know. I've got one I'm looking to sell. Barely used really, will sell it for $1000 shipped. PM me if you're interested.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I'd be interested if I wasn't afraid I'd be unemployed at any minute. Plotting my future upgrade, probably for next year. By that time I ought to be able to find a gently used D600 also.

The 24-120 f4 would be the equivalent of the 16-85 DX I have now in terms of focal range. The 16-85 almost never leaves my camera, so I imagine I'd find the 24-120 just as useful.

austriker - most of what I do is landscape and skiing/outdoors photography. I'm also the "official" photographer for a couple of my friend's bands so I've been learning to shoot indoors in crappy lighting and outdoors in crappy lighting too.

Never got on flickr, all my reasonably worthy pics are up on photobucket (which I hate but am too lazy to change).

http://photobucket.com/willbaker

Everything's organized by date and subject in sub-albums. Will be uploading some pics from a show I went to last Thursday later tonight. Look in the "Picture of the Day" thread for some of the first pics from that show. Probably not the most viewer-friendly setup but it works for keeping things organized.

Got a D200 and the old 24-120 (pre-VR) in 2008. Broke that lens so got the VR version in 2010 but never liked it on that camera (not wide enough on the wide end, kind of soft, slow focusing) then updgraded to the D7000 and 16-85 in March 2011.