D700 wide-angle options?

[BLWNHR]

With the recovery of my stolen camera gear looking increasingly less likely I need to start looking at what to buy. I was starting to look for a D700, and think I might buy one over getting a D300s as a replacement. The insurance company is happy to give me a store credit with one of their suppliers so I can order what I want. As I'm not shooting motorsport any more the extra length the crop body gives is no longer an issue.

My big question is, which wide-angle Nikon lens should I be looking at? And what are the advantages/disadvantages of each?

I have been wanting to get into more landscapes, which is why I had purchased a Cokin kit. This remains an aspiration of mine, but I need advice from our experienced landscapers regarding filters. I want to be able to run a full ND and ND Grad.

The two Nikon options I can see are:
The simply brilliant 14-24 f/2.8. I have a keen eye on this lens, but the very high expense of filters is proving difficult to overlook. Should I be letting this concern me? The biggest thing I want is the ability to run a full ND.
The 16-35 f/4. I've not heard much about this lens, does anyone here use it? It would solve all the filter problems because it has a standard 77mm thread.

I need a wide-angle for car interior shots. I used 12-14mm on my Sigma 10-20/D300 combo mostly. 12mm x 1.5 crop = 16mm, so the 16-35 might be adequite?

Any feedback on either option is greatly appreciated.

[arthurking83]

16-35 is a ripper lens, and saves you a considerable amount of money over a 14-24.

It also has VR which can be a boonus for handheld shots too.

14-24 is by far the better quality lens in terms of sheer IQ/sharpness/contrast/etc.
Even wide open compared to the 16-35 say at 16mm stopped down a tad(in the corners).

Even though I won't be able to afford these lenses for quite a while yet, this is a bit of a concern.. so for me, when the time comes when I can afford them, I'll simply have both for when they suit a particular need.

if you used to shoot in the 12-14 range on DX a lot, then maybe the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 may also suit. This lens seems to be quite good in the 14-16mm range on Fx too..and considerably cheaper than both Nikon lenses.

if you were dead set on sticking with the Nikon lenses, 16-35 would seem to be the obvious choice for what you appear to need now.

[kiwi]

The tokina gets a good wrap too, not sure which model now...I'll have to go look it up

Might sound stupid but i find a 24-70 wide on fx, if wider i use my little 20 2.8 - a ripper of a lens

[Lance B]

With the recovery of my stolen camera gear looking increasingly less likely I need to start looking at what to buy. I was starting to look for a D700, and think I might buy one over getting a D300s as a replacement. The insurance company is happy to give me a store credit with one of their suppliers so I can order what I want. As I'm not shooting motorsport any more the extra length the crop body gives is no longer an issue.

My big question is, which wide-angle Nikon lens should I be looking at? And what are the advantages/disadvantages of each?

I have been wanting to get into more landscapes, which is why I had purchased a Cokin kit. This remains an aspiration of mine, but I need advice from our experienced landscapers regarding filters. I want to be able to run a full ND and ND Grad.

The two Nikon options I can see are:
The simply brilliant 14-24 f/2.8. I have a keen eye on this lens, but the very high expense of filters is proving difficult to overlook. Should I be letting this concern me? The biggest thing I want is the ability to run a full ND.
The 16-35 f/4. I've not heard much about this lens, does anyone here use it? It would solve all the filter problems because it has a standard 77mm thread.

I need a wide-angle for car interior shots. I used 12-14mm on my Sigma 10-20/D300 combo mostly. 12mm x 1.5 crop = 16mm, so the 16-35 might be adequite?

Any feedback on either option is greatly appreciated.

I use the 16-35 f4 VR and it is superb, IMO. It is super sharp with excellent overall IQ and the VR is worth it's weigth in gold. On my recent trip to Europe, the VR came into it's own inside those dimly lit churches and cathedrals where using ISO3200, f11 (for good DOF) and 1/5sec was not out of the ordinary. The thing is, VR gives you the option to shoot slow so as you can use a lower ISO like ISO400 instead of resorting to ISO3200.

I like to use ND grads and the fact that it accepts filters was a must for me and that is partly why I chose it over the 14-24, the other part being that it has VR.

At 16mm, you may require some distortion correction but that is easily fixed in post process like this. As you can see, the foreground corners are sharp and that extends all the way to the background.

16mm, 1/10 sec, f/13, ISO 3200

[wolffman]

If the insurance company was giving me the money I would go for the 16-35 for the VR and portability, and filters. That 14-24 looks like a behemouth and I don't think it can take a filter with the bulbous front element. Even at 16mm with the 16-35 you might run into problems with grad filter holders.
I guess the shopping is a silver lining for the whole nasty experience. Did you lose anything irreplaceable?
Don't forget the 17-35 f2.8 which is still around

[Wayne]

Don't forget the 17-35 f2.8 which is still around

Nikons cracker pro wide zoom, better than the 16-35 by any review I've seen. I have the 17-35, and it is sharp all over. The VR on the 16-35 would have benefit for handheld low light shots and if you can sacrifice the extra stop of light.

[BLWNHR]

16-35 is a ripper lens, and saves you a considerable amount of money over a 14-24.
*snip*
if you were dead set on sticking with the Nikon lenses, 16-35 would seem to be the obvious choice for what you appear to need now.

It's only $400 difference, I would be willing to spend it if it was what I needed. I am sinking some of my own money into it to pay for the upgrades

I had all Sigma lenses before, 70-200 was brilliantly sharp, 24-70 average, 10-20 good (but no where near as good as my mates 10-20). I was going to sell the Sigma 24-70 to get the Nikon anyhow, as I'm using this lens a lot more. I have a bit of expendable at the moment (and plenty of new jobs once I have camera gear again!) which will all help pay for it.

The tokina gets a good wrap too, not sure which model now...I'll have to go look it up

Might sound stupid but i find a 24-70 wide on fx, if wider i use my little 20 2.8 - a ripper of a lens

Thanks Kiwi. I think the Tokina has a fairly short focal range, if I was to go one of them I would probably go a prime.

Yeah, 24 is wide on a FF body, but for shooting the interiors of cars I need really wide. Particularly for utes and coupes.

I use the 16-35 f4 VR and it is superb, IMO.
snip
I like to use ND grads and the fact that it accepts filters was a must for me and that is partly why I chose it over the 14-24, the other part being that it has VR.

Thankyou, and thanks for the sample shot.

The use of filters (and a nice 77mm ring like every other lens) is pushing me that direction.

Even at 16mm with the 16-35 you might run into problems with grad filter holders.
I guess the shopping is a silver lining for the whole nasty experience. Did you lose anything irreplaceable?

Yeah, I really want the 16mm for car interior shots, which will be taken 'bare'. For landscapes I can zoom slightly and stitch if neccessary to solve the filter problem.

Just before all my gear was taken I was experimenting with the effects of vignetting with stacked/Cokin filters on the Sigma 10-20 as my first blog post. I guess I can finish that, but the inspiration is gone now it is no longer relevant.

Nothing irreplacable lost. I am super careful about multiple backups, not leaving anything on laptops that isn't stored elsewhere etc. The thieves took my partners car, which has been returned. That, whilst not irreplaceable, would have been very hard to replace. There is one very critical part that was stolen off my HR Holden which is proving very difficult/expensive to replace however.

Nikons cracker pro wide zoom, better than the 16-35 by any review I've seen. I have the 17-35, and it is sharp all over. The VR on the 16-35 would have benefit for handheld low light shots and if you can sacrifice the extra stop of light.

I can sacrifice the extra stop, the VR would be most helpful when you're at a contorted position in/on/under a car for a feature shoot, haha.

It's funny because a lot of the reviews I've read over the last day suggest the 16-35 VR being at least equal to, mostly better, than the 17-35.

[kiwi]

I wonder whether for car interiors a fish might be worthy

[BLWNHR]

I wonder whether for car interiors a fish might be worthy

They work, but I prefer rectilinear lenses. Personal preference I suppose.

A 16mm f/2.8 might be on the cards later on though. Didn't realise they were only around the $1k mark.

[wolffman]

If they had time to take parts of your car they must have felt like they had some time.

[BLWNHR]

If they had time to take parts of your car they must have felt like they had some time.

It was sitting on the bench as I'm rebuilding the motor at the moment. It was the supercharger and manifolds pictured here, here and here.

[junqbox]

If you need to use filters 16-35, otherwise you couldn't go past the 14-24, depending on your budget.

[swifty]

I have the 14-24mm and for some similar reasons to u, I'm also replacing it with either the 16-35 f4 VR or 17-35 2.8.
Optically there's no question it's superior in sharpness, distortions etc. U name it. Except it is prone to flare with that bulbous front element but how this compares with the other two ultrawides I'm not sure.
My way of thinking is most of the time it's used stop down hence f2.8 is not used as much although there are a few situations where f2.8 is very handy. If I want to shoot wide and shallow dof, it doesn't cut it - only the 24mm 1.4 can do this. The other two ultrawides also has a little more focal length to play with.