Wide Angle lens for Nikon D700

[Deerfield]

I need a wide angle lens for my Nikon D700. I had to sell my superb Nikkor 12-24mm wide lens because it was a DX format.
I need a wide angle lens desperately!!!! But I have 2 choices:

1. Wait until I've saved up enough $$$$ to buy the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (big bucks)
2. Buy a third party wide angle lens and have one to use much sooner!

As I've always used Nikkor lenses I'm not very familiar with third party ones. I know Sigma have a wide angle one that would be suitable but there may be others out there that I'm not aware of.

Any help/recommendations would be much appreciated!

[I @ M]

I need a wide angle lens desperately!!!!

(big bucks)

The two go together unfortunately.

If desperate overrides the wallet simply buy the best ---- AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

If the wallet overrides desperate ---- wait and go picture less.

Welcome to AP by the way.

[kiwi]

You didnt have to sell the 12-24, it would have worked fine on DX format

Anyhow.

I have a 20mm F2.8, wide enough for me

Most UWA's are very good, third party or not

[mongo]

be smart. if you do not need a zoom, get a nice second hand 20mm f2.8. Mongo has an old AIs manual model - great pictures - few hundred bucks Or later models even in short zooms - still very inexpensive or just buy the model you mentioned second hand !

[MarkW]

Just to add the other side of the equation, I have the 17-35mm and its really worth the bucks once you finally get them together. Its the lens that virtually never left the camera during 4 weeks in UK, France and Belgium.

[dmdigital]

Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 is fantastic on FX!

But I'd have to go along with the idea of the 20mm prime or the 17-35 f/2.8 as suitable and less expensive alternatives.

[N*A*M]

18-35 if money is really tight?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/846954

[Wayne]

I have the AFS 17-35 2.8 Nikkor and it is tack sharp even wide open. worth every dollar. I wonder though how long it will be before Nikon update and supersede it as it has been about since '99 I think.

Lighter than 14-24 and more versatile with the longer focal length. One major drawback to the 14-24 is the inability to use filters. This leaves that bulbous front element exposed, and of course CPL or GND is something you no longer have at your disposal. The 14-24 is arguably the sharpest lens Nikon have produced to date, but no filter is what really turned me off.

[Sar NOP]

I need a wide angle lens for my Nikon D700. I had to sell my superb Nikkor 12-24mm wide lens because it was a DX format.
I need a wide angle lens desperately!!!! But I have 2 choices:

1. Wait until I've saved up enough $$$$ to buy the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S (big bucks)
2. Buy a third party wide angle lens and have one to use much sooner!

If you use the lens at f/8-f/11 and filtre on it most of the time, any wide angle will be sharp enough for you. So get the cheapest one !

A few months ago, I bought a 14-24/2.8 and use it at f/2.8 in 99.9% of time (I hate using filtre on any of my lens !). This is an incredible zoom lens !!!

[Redgum]

I'm with DM. Having both the 14-24 and the 17-35, an FX and DX camera I love the 14-24 on FX but somehow it's not as good on the D300. The 17-35 is a more useful lens.
For the crop camera the 17-55 is outstanding.

[Wayne]

Just to add the other side of the equation, I have the 17-35mm and its really worth the bucks once you finally get them together. Its the lens that virtually never left the camera during 4 weeks in UK, France and Belgium.

couldn't agree more, just had 2 weeks in Japan, and for almost the entire time, it never left the D700.

[darkc]

I invested in a 14-24mm f2.8 a few months ago and I use a D700 also. I have to say I am simply amazed at how good this lens is. It has not been off my camera since I have had it, and i never use the 24mm end. I shoot mainly land/seascapes and have found that the cokin xpro series filter system works well with the universal adapter.

If you can afford the 14-24mm you will not be disappointed. Have you considered the new 16-35mm f4 VR?

[TerminalVeloCD]

If you're after a compromise between portability, quality and price, the new 16-35mm VR might be the right lens for you.

[gaidin]

I just dont get what gap the 16-35mm was meant to fill? Its not that much cheaper OR smaller/lighter than the 17-35.

I sold my 17-35 to fund the D700 purchase and have regretted it ever since. Ive got to buy back into UWA now and still torn between the 14-24 and just grabbing another 17-35

The upcoming Lee filter system for the 14-24 might just sway me that way I think!

[Redgum]

If it's any help Gaidin my 17-35 spends more time on the full frame cameras than the 14-24. The extra 11mm at the tight end is practical.

[gaidin]

Thanks Redgum, youre not making this any easier

My head says go with the 17-35 and take the savings on the filter system that I get with that lens...but that 14-24 is just so tack sharp and 14mm is pretty damn wide!!

[Redgum]

Haha!!! Like any love affair you need to see past the first embrace.

[Ace55]

A pro let me borrow his 14-24mm to use on my D300. Absolutely fabulous lens - brilliant quality and build (but as you can't fit a UV filter on the front you have to be very careful!). He uses it on a D700 and loves it - sharp all the way through the image. I'm going to wait and save my pennies - I'd rather do that and get a top lens than compromise.

[ricktas]

I have the 17-35 and its a great lens, but my next purchase will be the 14-24 cause I want the extra width.

[gaidin]

I have the 17-35 and its a great lens, but my next purchase will be the 14-24 cause I want the extra width.

Thats where I got to. But then I started adding up the cost of a custom filter system + filters...and it starts becoming a VERY expensive 3mm to achieve!!!

ps. Redgum, I love the analogy haha