Super wide-angle options for FX?

[Kajo]

Hi guys,

I recently bought a Nikon D700 to replace my Nikon D300 and Sigma 10-20, which is a DX lens.

I am now looking to get a similarly wide full frame lens that also takes filters.

I don't really want to go longer than a 10-20 equivalent on DX, therefore nothing longer than the Sigma 15-30 which would be one option at this stage. Are there any other options?

[lay-z]

I've been considering the 16-35mm/4 VR as the most viable option for when I go full frame, mainly because the 12-24/2.8 doesn't allow you to fit conventional filter systems due to its design (Lee have developed a holder for the 12-24 but the waiting list is quite long from what Ive heard - up to 12 months! )

[JM Tran]

Sigma 12-24 is the widest rectilinear lens you can go for FX, wider and shorter than the 15-30.

the Nikon 16-35 VR is also an option and gives almost exact field of view as the Sigma 10-20 you are used to.

[kiwi]

There's the Tokina 16-28 also. Filters are still a problem though

[I @ M]

Going by your parameters, no longer than 30mm and must take filters, there are no lenses available to you.

The 16-35 Nikkor is the closest at 5mm longer than you wanted but it will accept 77mm filters.

[Kajo]

Thanks for all the input. And it looks like the 16-35 is the widest lens that will take filters.
So for me that makes it pretty hard to justify the full frame body. It seems like for my type of shooting (i.e. I don't care about ISO, since I only shoot at ISO 200 or less anyway), a cropped sensor actually makes more sense...
I am considering a return of the D700 and simply getting a D300 again...at least you've got plenty of WA options without filter issues.

[Tommo1965]

ill swap ya my d300s for your d700

[maccaroneski]

You're not considering the D7000 Kajo?

FWIW I love my 16-35... makes a nice walkaround lens too.

[Lance B]

The 16-35 f4 VR is a wonderful lens and the VR is a very handy addition. Went to Europe last year and inside those dimly lit churches, cathedrals and castles, VR paid off where I had to use f13 to get max DOF, 1/5sec and ISO3200 without a tripod.

[Kajo]

You're not considering the D7000 Kajo?

Not looking to downgrade from my D300.

[Kajo]

Well I ended up giving back the D700, and since they are so rare to buy at the moment due to Tsunami, it got sold again to the customer behind me in line lol.
I bought the D300s which makes a lot more sense for my needs, is cheaper and overall more convenient for me.
Will keep my Sigma 10-20 and am a happy camper.
Would love to upgrade to a Sigma 8-16 which would be even wider and I love wiiiide. But it doesn't take filters, so it looks like I have the perfect setup now for my line of work.

[Tommo1965]

The 16-35 f4 VR is a wonderful lens and the VR is a very handy addition. Went to Europe last year and inside those dimly lit churches, cathedrals and castles, VR paid off where I had to use f13 to get max DOF, 1/5sec and ISO3200 without a tripod.

Lance

how many stops does the Vr achieve ?

would you say that the 1/5 was a 1/20-1/30 with the Vr ?

[ecopix]

The D300 + Sigma 10-20 is a sweet combination that delivers near perfect corners at f13, with filters. For large display prints I need to use a full frame camera for file size, but I can't get the corner quality that's achievable with that combo. Colour fringing, softness and exposure fall off are common with FX cameras and ultra wides, even the Distagons.
The Sigma at 20mm is sharper and more even than the 20mm Nikkor prime, and at 18mm has less distortion and better corners than the standard zoom kit lenses. Actually I sometimes use it on my full frame 21mp body at 10mm because you can crop it into a nice four thirds proportion of 12mp, whereas to crop a D300 to four-thirds ends up only 10mp.

[BLWNHR]

The Sigma at 20mm is sharper and more even than the 20mm Nikkor prime

But it all depends on if you get a good copy. I used to borrow a 10-20 off a friend and it was flawless. After a while I bought my own and it wasn't a patch on my friends copy. I got it swapped for another once, and then sent it back to be looked at, none were as good as my friends version.

Sigma QC leaves a lot to be desired. (My new 70-200 Sigma is no where near as good as the stolen one it replaces.)

[ecopix]

Thanks for that, Adam. It's worth knowing, and makes sense of the variety of opinions on lenses. I've been thinking of the Sigma 12-24 for full frame because I like the 10-20 so much, but reviews are patchy.
I had to try twice with a Nikkor 80-400. The first one had a slight aberration bottom right corner at 300mm to 400mm, so Sigma aren't the only ones with a problem.
All the optical houses are pushing the limits these days, with fifteen or more elements and complex mechanical movements, and extremely demanding hi-res sensors, so it is no surprise tolerances drift a bit.
Makes you wonder about ordering glass from Honkers on the eBay!
Cheers
Wayne

[RRRoger]

With a DX body, I prefer the Nikkor 10-24
With a FX body, I prefer the Nikkor 17-35
f/2.8 without is more useable than f/4 with VR for me.
I sent my 16-35 back after picking up a mint used 17-35.

[lay-z]

With a DX body, I prefer the Nikkor 10-24
With a FX body, I prefer the Nikkor 17-35
f/2.8 without is more useable than f/4 with VR for me.
I sent my 16-35 back after picking up a mint used 17-35.

In what context do you mean 'usable?' as I'm currently debating on which to buy.

[RRRoger]

If you usually shoot at f/8, buy the 16-35
If you often need f/2.8, buy the 17-35

In low light the 17-35 is more useable than the 16-35 with VR.

I also like the 17-35 better at 17mm and for action photography.

They are so close at 26mm f/8 I don't think you could tell the difference.

Those that like VR would choose to differ with my opinion
as I usually turn it off on my lens
because of either the noise or having to wait for it to settle down before I can shoot.

[gqtuazon]

If you usually shoot at f/8, buy the 16-35
If you often need f/2.8, buy the 17-35

In low light the 17-35 is more useable than the 16-35 with VR.

I also like the 17-35 better at 17mm and for action photography.

They are so close at 26mm f/8 I don't think you could tell the difference.

Those that like VR would choose to differ with my opinion
as I usually turn it off on my lens
because of either the noise or having to wait for it to settle down before I can shoot.

I can understand why you would prefer the 17-35mm f2.8 Roger if you use it in sports application. However, when we talk about still photography in low light situation, the VRII system works very well and can compensate the two stops difference of the f2.8. I get more keepers at 1/15 when I use this lens with VR on. I don't have steady hands at all and the VR is almost essential to me when using lower shutter speeds below 1/100. I have the older Nikon 20-35mm f2.8D too as a reference. IQ, contrast and sharpness wise, the Nikon 16-35mm is much sharper and has better contrast IMO. It is very sharp at f5.6 using a FX and does not require you to go up to f8 unlike most lenses.

The reason why I chose the 16-35mm f4 VRII is because it's cheaper, lighter, sharper, has VR, good weather sealing, and has better handling of flare.

I've posted some sample shots below on the other thread using this lens if you are interested.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-you-Use/page2

Here is another sample at 16mm using a D700.

[RRRoger]

Ken Rockwell likes the 16-35 better for everything except action sports

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm