| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|||||||
| Wide or wide enough? - Page 1 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 8th, 2017 08:27 |
|
1st Post |
highlander
|
I'm selling/trading my Olympus equipment and contemplating a wide angle for my D600 I'm debating a used 14-24/2.8 vs a new 18-35/3.5-4.5 AFS G ED (the latest version, I know the old version was horrid) I do like ultra wide and loved my 12-24 on the D7100, infact it pretty much lived on it. But in FX terms that is 18-36 which kind of leads me to the second option. However, I did shoot a lot at the widest end and I really like getting in close and making the viewer feel they're in the picture. But, the 14-24 is really big and heavy and that puts me off. And the no filter thing. Your experiences would be very valuable to me in this decision. It will be used for landscapes and architecture, including interiors. Mainly landscapes at his time. 
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 8th, 2017 11:06 |
|
2nd Post |
jk
|
I have a Sigma FX 12-24 f4-5.6 that I got from Eric five or six years ago, maybe longer! It is soft at the edges at 12mm but at 14mm it is sharp. That is a much smaller lens than the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 also gets good reviews. http://ffordes.com/product/17083008000981 Take a trip to Ffordes and check it out.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 8th, 2017 12:26 |
|
3rd Post |
Eric
|
Just sold my 14-24. It had a scratch on the front lens right on the edge between the petal lens hood. It played no part in the image as it was below its field of view but never the less it knocked a lot of value of the lens.  The point is ...it's an awfully vulnerable piece of glass. The domed lens needs a push on lens cap...which pulls off with a sneeze. I would regularly pull the lens out of the pouch and leave the cap behind. The cap fell off once in the case and the flash gun rested on the glass all the way home....hence the mark!! Optically it's a great lens...maybe a little stretched at 14mm. It needs careful use to avoid ugly flare into the light. I used it for interiors and large machinery. I struggled to avoid distortion effects wider than 16mm and frequently found 18mm more than adequate for 'normal' wide shooting. Of course if I wanted exaggerated effects in the image, the 14mm was there to use. But in truth I tired of wiiiide special effects and struggled to avoid it when I wanted to be serious. I would also add that it's heavy and it felt unbalanced in the hand on my D750. I would suggest it will be the same on the D600. Of course, no problem on a tripod....but if the use of a tripod is preferable...it is a bit of a millstone...imho. I found the 17- 35 a nice compromise lens. Although old (pre digital) with a bit more colour fringing than some newer pro lenses it was a capable lens with a tad more range than the 18-35. I sold mine to Robert. If I move back to Nikon...I may try and buy it back from him. 
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 8th, 2017 15:24 |
|
4th Post |
Robert
|
Well the second lens I bought for my D1 was the 18-35 f3.5-4.5. Back in about 2006? It has been a stalwart member of my lens collection, finally being completely unleashed on the D3. It's quite light and I find the images it produces are perfectly acceptable. It even has AF, which is quite a novelty for me! I don't believe there is a great deal of difference between the 17-35 f2.8 and the 18-35 f3.5-4.5, except weight and a stop or so. With the current modern cameras one stop isn't an issue, but lighter might be good for you? I took this with it a couple of nights ago, D3, Nikkor 18-35mm f3.5-4.5, 28mm, 5 seconds at f5.6, ISO800  Also, D3, Nikkor 18-35mm f3.5-4.5, 35mm, 10 seconds at f4.5, ISO800. I purposely reduced saturation in this picture with the intention of better conveying the lateness of the hour, 01:04 Hrs. Apart from the stars it looked like daylight! It was of course the Harvest Moon, full. 
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 8th, 2017 17:08 |
|
5th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Well the second lens I bought for my D1 was the 18-35 f3.5-4.5. Back in about 2006? It has been a stalwart member of my lens collection, finally being completely unleashed on the D3. I am agreement with you regarding the 18-35 comparison with the 17-35. Before buying the latter I too had the former. In fact I had to exchange the lens 3 times before I got one that was better than my 18-35. The difference was colour fringing. The 17-35 had far less CA...at 17mm and f5.6.These were the settings I used most often for machinery shots and I used to get a lot of edge effects off stainless panels, with the 18-35. Sold it to my mate Carl and he used it on his D700 with no complaints for his wedding groups for a number of years.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 8th, 2017 19:21 |
|
6th Post |
amazing50
|
Was your 12-24 on the D7100 a DX? Have you tried it on the D600?
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 9th, 2017 03:32 |
|
7th Post |
highlander
|
I had the old 18-35 and it was horrible with moustache distortion but there is a new one that is supposed to be better than the 16-35 and half the price. Obviously it involves more plastic but it's also under 400g and optics are supposed the be better than the 16-35 or the 17-35. At £650 it's still a hefty punt though.
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 9th, 2017 07:53 |
|
8th Post |
jk
|
I have the 17-35 f2.8 AFS and it is a great lens with very high quality sharpness but the extra width of the 12-24 is more useful. I only buy FX lenses for Nikon.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 10th, 2017 06:10 |
|
9th Post |
Eric
|
highlander wrote:I had the old 18-35 and it was horrible with moustache distortion but there is a new one that is supposed to be better than the 16-35 and half the price. Obviously it involves more plastic but it's also under 400g and optics are supposed the be better than the 16-35 or the 17-35. At £650 it's still a hefty punt though. I never photographed anyone with a moustache using that lens ...so didn't notice the distortion. 
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 10th, 2017 11:37 |
|
10th Post |
highlander
|
14mm (14-24/f2.8) vs Attachment: STORM-N-0306.jpg (Downloaded 30 times)
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1468 Current time is 00:53 | Page: 1 2 3 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Wide or wide enough? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0596 seconds (65% database + 35% PHP). 82 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0596 seconds (65% database + 35% PHP). 82 queries executed.