Assistance with Lens Choice
Discussion
I am looking for some assistance with the choice of a wide zoom. I use Nikon D300 and have some good lenses (28-70 f2.8 Nikkor, 70-200 f.8 Nikkor and 300 f2.8 prime Nikkor) already and I am looking for a good wide lens.
As I see it I have three choices (I am looking at either new or a Gray's Mint S/Hand)
17-35 f2.8
14-24 f2.8
12-24 f4 DX
I have two D300 bodies and primarily shoot motorsport so will not change to a FX sensor and yes it does HAVE to be Nikon.
Your imput would be most welcome as I dont shoot a lot of wide stuff I dont know if the angle of view will be that much greater given the 5mm diff between the 12-24 and the 17-35, I am guessing that I would notice the 11mm difference between the 28-70 and the 17-35 though.
The lens must be a good match to the others I have in image quality and I have looked at the Hogan and Rockwell reviews and still cant decide.
As I see it I have three choices (I am looking at either new or a Gray's Mint S/Hand)
17-35 f2.8
14-24 f2.8
12-24 f4 DX
I have two D300 bodies and primarily shoot motorsport so will not change to a FX sensor and yes it does HAVE to be Nikon.
Your imput would be most welcome as I dont shoot a lot of wide stuff I dont know if the angle of view will be that much greater given the 5mm diff between the 12-24 and the 17-35, I am guessing that I would notice the 11mm difference between the 28-70 and the 17-35 though.
The lens must be a good match to the others I have in image quality and I have looked at the Hogan and Rockwell reviews and still cant decide.
I have the 17-35mm (also on a DX sensor) and love it. It is significantly better at 20mm than the old 20mm AFD f/2.8 prime for the D2X sensor. I also have the 35mm f/2 and I use that relatively infrequently compared to the 17-35mm - the extra weight and bulk outweighs the advantage of the smaller 35mm, but the quality of the result always drags me that way!
I purchased it from Grays nearly two years ago, it was secondhand without a box and I think I paid between £6-700 with a bit of haggling with Gray himself - I think they're selling them for significantly more now - but it is a good piece of optics. (At the same time I haggled down a secondhand Nikon polariser for it - its the chunkier one, but there's no light cut off.)
It IS an older design - but that didn't put me off - being wide and with not far to move the elements the AF-S gets focus very quickly. The build quality is typical better-end Nikkor, feeling solid and just right in weight when matched to the D2X - it may be a bit heavy and unbalanced on a lighter body, I suppose. It certainly is happy on a tripod with the camera body on an L-bracket. You get some flare (but considerably less of a problem than a Sigma 14mm I used to have). I always use the lens hood, and it's a good typical Nikkor bayonet type which is clear stronger than it looks.
Personally I have also gone for a 10.5mm when going really wide and usually find 17-35mm a good (eq to 25-50mm ish) fit to the range I have. But it may not be wide enough for some.
Here's the reason I went for it - he's not wrong...follow the links to the appropriate lens survey page - you'll see a lot of "5"s for this lens.
For me it has definitely been worth the money - I couldn't easily justify the newer lenses, and now I'd have to think twice even if I had a bucket of cash ready!
I purchased it from Grays nearly two years ago, it was secondhand without a box and I think I paid between £6-700 with a bit of haggling with Gray himself - I think they're selling them for significantly more now - but it is a good piece of optics. (At the same time I haggled down a secondhand Nikon polariser for it - its the chunkier one, but there's no light cut off.)
It IS an older design - but that didn't put me off - being wide and with not far to move the elements the AF-S gets focus very quickly. The build quality is typical better-end Nikkor, feeling solid and just right in weight when matched to the D2X - it may be a bit heavy and unbalanced on a lighter body, I suppose. It certainly is happy on a tripod with the camera body on an L-bracket. You get some flare (but considerably less of a problem than a Sigma 14mm I used to have). I always use the lens hood, and it's a good typical Nikkor bayonet type which is clear stronger than it looks.
Personally I have also gone for a 10.5mm when going really wide and usually find 17-35mm a good (eq to 25-50mm ish) fit to the range I have. But it may not be wide enough for some.
Here's the reason I went for it - he's not wrong...follow the links to the appropriate lens survey page - you'll see a lot of "5"s for this lens.
For me it has definitely been worth the money - I couldn't easily justify the newer lenses, and now I'd have to think twice even if I had a bucket of cash ready!
grumpy bear said:
I dont know if the angle of view will be that much greater given the 5mm diff between the 12-24 and the 17-35, I am guessing that I would notice the 11mm difference between the 28-70 and the 17-35 though.
5mm at the wide end makes massively more difference than 5mm at the long end.One lens you omitted in the 'ultra' department is the Nikkor 10-24mm f3.5-4.5. Not the fastest but then you did include the 12-24mm f4.
As well as the 17-35mm f2.8 there's also the 17-55mm f2.8 - my 'default' lens, and I find the extra bit of reach very useful.
beano500 said:
I have the 17-35mm (also on a DX sensor) and love it. It is significantly better at 20mm than the old 20mm AFD f/2.8 prime for the D2X sensor. I also have the 35mm f/2 and I use that relatively infrequently compared to the 17-35mm - the extra weight and bulk outweighs the advantage of the smaller 35mm, but the quality of the result always drags me that way!
I purchased it from Grays nearly two years ago, it was secondhand without a box and I think I paid between £6-700 with a bit of haggling with Gray himself - I think they're selling them for significantly more now - but it is a good piece of optics. (At the same time I haggled down a secondhand Nikon polariser for it - its the chunkier one, but there's no light cut off.)
It IS an older design - but that didn't put me off - being wide and with not far to move the elements the AF-S gets focus very quickly. The build quality is typical better-end Nikkor, feeling solid and just right in weight when matched to the D2X - it may be a bit heavy and unbalanced on a lighter body, I suppose. It certainly is happy on a tripod with the camera body on an L-bracket. You get some flare (but considerably less of a problem than a Sigma 14mm I used to have). I always use the lens hood, and it's a good typical Nikkor bayonet type which is clear stronger than it looks.
Personally I have also gone for a 10.5mm when going really wide and usually find 17-35mm a good (eq to 25-50mm ish) fit to the range I have. But it may not be wide enough for some.
Here's the reason I went for it - he's not wrong...follow the links to the appropriate lens survey page - you'll see a lot of "5"s for this lens.
For me it has definitely been worth the money - I couldn't easily justify the newer lenses, and now I'd have to think twice even if I had a bucket of cash ready!
Great link, his review of the 12-24 and the 17-35 ties in with the Hogan review, edging towards the 17-35 at the moment.I purchased it from Grays nearly two years ago, it was secondhand without a box and I think I paid between £6-700 with a bit of haggling with Gray himself - I think they're selling them for significantly more now - but it is a good piece of optics. (At the same time I haggled down a secondhand Nikon polariser for it - its the chunkier one, but there's no light cut off.)
It IS an older design - but that didn't put me off - being wide and with not far to move the elements the AF-S gets focus very quickly. The build quality is typical better-end Nikkor, feeling solid and just right in weight when matched to the D2X - it may be a bit heavy and unbalanced on a lighter body, I suppose. It certainly is happy on a tripod with the camera body on an L-bracket. You get some flare (but considerably less of a problem than a Sigma 14mm I used to have). I always use the lens hood, and it's a good typical Nikkor bayonet type which is clear stronger than it looks.
Personally I have also gone for a 10.5mm when going really wide and usually find 17-35mm a good (eq to 25-50mm ish) fit to the range I have. But it may not be wide enough for some.
Here's the reason I went for it - he's not wrong...follow the links to the appropriate lens survey page - you'll see a lot of "5"s for this lens.
For me it has definitely been worth the money - I couldn't easily justify the newer lenses, and now I'd have to think twice even if I had a bucket of cash ready!
Thanks all for the input so far.
Edited by grumpy bear on Tuesday 1st December 21:39
I am sorry to say that the 14-24 f2.8 is by far the best lens of the bunch. Infact I would say it is the best that Nikon make right now. It is as good as a similar prime. You could always rent before you buy.
Yes you are using a cropped sensor but if you go to say a D700 then the lens will be right. As an aside, the 17 55mm lens is a good match with the D300.
Yes you are using a cropped sensor but if you go to say a D700 then the lens will be right. As an aside, the 17 55mm lens is a good match with the D300.
Do you need a fast wide? For landscapes you typicaly dont, for indoor/low light or mebe sports you do, you can get shallow DOF but its not realy super shallow unless rout on the thing at UWA.
Difference between 12 and 17 is a hella lot, about 40% different angle of view, quite a difference between 10 and 12....
Difference between 12 and 17 is a hella lot, about 40% different angle of view, quite a difference between 10 and 12....
Olivero said:
I am sorry to say that the 14-24 f2.8 is by far the best lens of the bunch. Infact I would say it is the best that Nikon make right now. It is as good as a similar prime. You could always rent before you buy.
Yes you are using a cropped sensor but if you go to say a D700 then the lens will be right. As an aside, the 17 55mm lens is a good match with the D300.
I wont be changing to a full frame, too much invested in the D300's and as I primarily shoot Motorsport the crop/mag factor works in my favour. Yes you are using a cropped sensor but if you go to say a D700 then the lens will be right. As an aside, the 17 55mm lens is a good match with the D300.
I was edging away from the lack of filter fit capability for the 14-24, has anyone used the Cokin or Lee set up with one of this and found it to be OK or bad?
RobDickinson said:
Do you need a fast wide? For landscapes you typicaly dont, for indoor/low light or mebe sports you do, you can get shallow DOF but its not realy super shallow unless rout on the thing at UWA.
Difference between 12 and 17 is a hella lot, about 40% different angle of view, quite a difference between 10 and 12....
I agree I dont need the fast wide, it is just the image quality I am looking for. Has anyone got an image, method or a link that demonstrates the difference in a visual way?Difference between 12 and 17 is a hella lot, about 40% different angle of view, quite a difference between 10 and 12....
grumpy bear said:
I agree I dont need the fast wide, it is just the image quality I am looking for. Has anyone got an image, method or a link that demonstrates the difference in a visual way?
This will only be partially useful, but take a look at this
If you view all sizes you can see the original. Keep in mind there are errors from the stitching of the images, plus I've photoshopped the colours up quite a lot. It's shot with a Canon 400d, so as a body it's no where near as sharp as yours.
I have the Sigma 10-20 and whilst it does the job well for the price, I do find it slow and I'm sure the 14-24 would knock it into a cocked hat - as you'd expect for the price. I have heard from a respected user that the 14-24 is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made.
The difficulties begin when you set out to get the best quality lens you can possibly get, then find it is not suitabLe for some reason and start havig to make compromises!
The difficulties begin when you set out to get the best quality lens you can possibly get, then find it is not suitabLe for some reason and start havig to make compromises!
Simpo Two said:
I have the Sigma 10-20 and whilst it does the job well for the price, I do find it slow and I'm sure the 14-24 would knock it into a cocked hat - as you'd expect for the price. I have heard from a respected user that the 14-24 is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made.
The difficulties begin when you set out to get the best quality lens you can possibly get, then find it is not suitabLe for some reason and start havig to make compromises!
I guess it depends how wide you want to go. IMO the 14-24 is an UWA for a FX sensor, on a cropper 14mm isn't super wide.The difficulties begin when you set out to get the best quality lens you can possibly get, then find it is not suitabLe for some reason and start havig to make compromises!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff