Full Frame Wide Angle Dilemma

[Cerpin Taxt]

I really miss my Tokina 11-16 on my D7000. It really was an amazing lens. In fact, at 16mm it filled my FX frame pretty serviceably, but I let it go anyway.

Now, I don't really have a good ultra-wide lens to replace it. My two main lenses are the AF-D 35-70mm/2.8, and the AF-D 80-200mm/2.8. I picked up a 24mm/2.8 for something a bit wider since it's really small, cheap and with good image quality, but I want more.

These are the choices I'm considering:

Swap the 24mm/2.8 for the 20mm/2.8 - the 20 is every bit as small and light as the 24, but it's just a bit more expensive. This seems like the most economical choice, even if maybe the least satisfying.

Swap the 24mm/2.8 for the Tokina 16-28mm/2.8 - This seems like a nice compromise between cheaping out vs dropping heaps of cash on the top of the line. No filters, though, which (aside from price) is why I'm not considering the Nikon 14-24.

Swap the 24mm for the Nikon 16-35/4 - I'm leary of the slow aperture here, despite the claims of VR offsetting its low-light performance. The advantage of filter threads seems like a nice edge over the Tokina as well, but it's also selling for 1.5x the price of the Tokina.

Who's got thoughts? Suggestions? Other lenses I should consider?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I forgot another I was considering: the Rokinon 14mm/2.8. Manual focus only, but fairly attractive path to get to 14mm.

 

[CuriousMike]

Is 18mm wide enough? The Nikon 18-35 is a bit of a unsung hero; might not be fast enough for you but you should google some reviews on it.

For sure, consider the Rokinons - I own the 14 f/2.8 - but I've only used it for astro-work so I can't comment on it as a general use lens.
I also own their 24 f/14. (also for astro ) - astro doesn't care about AF so their lack of AF doesn't concern me.

If you don't need AF ( and at 14mm, you really won't since just about everything is in focus ), look at the Rokinon wide's.

 

[Syborg1211]

I had the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AFD lens, and it was great. I used it more often than the 14-24mm f/2.8 since the 14-24 was so massive. There's a good amount of people out there that say the 20mm is soft, but then actual sharpness reviews found it pretty sharp. In practice, I never found the sharpness of that lens lacking. Real question is whether you need wider than 20mm. My current widest lens is 21mm, and I even miss the 20 sometimes.

 

[MrSquished]

I really miss my Tokina 11-16 on my D7000. It really was an amazing lens. In fact, at 16mm it filled my FX frame pretty serviceably, but I let it go anyway.

Now, I don't really have a good ultra-wide lens to replace it. My two main lenses are the AF-D 35-70mm/2.8, and the AF-D 80-200mm/2.8. I picked up a 24mm/2.8 for something a bit wider since it's really small, cheap and with good image quality, but I want more.

These are the choices I'm considering:

Swap the 24mm/2.8 for the 20mm/2.8 - the 20 is every bit as small and light as the 24, but it's just a bit more expensive. This seems like the most economical choice, even if maybe the least satisfying.

Swap the 24mm/2.8 for the Tokina 16-28mm/2.8 - This seems like a nice compromise between cheaping out vs dropping heaps of cash on the top of the line. No filters, though, which (aside from price) is why I'm not considering the Nikon 14-24.

Swap the 24mm for the Nikon 16-35/4 - I'm leary of the slow aperture here, despite the claims of VR offsetting its low-light performance. The advantage of filter threads seems like a nice edge over the Tokina as well, but it's also selling for 1.5x the price of the Tokina.

Who's got thoughts? Suggestions? Other lenses I should consider?

I would go with the Tokina unless you use filters. When you want to go wide you often want to go the widest your lens can go, and 16mm is perfect. You'll probably find yourself using the lens at its 16mm capabilities far more than other focal ranges, and it's nice to be able to quickly go to 28mm to capture something, although that is still wide.

I have an 18-36 on my M43 setup and the 36mm is nice to have in a pinch, but rarely used.

The other thought is getting a fixed lens at 16mm or thereabouts if you don't feel you need the extra length in a pinch without having to change lenses.

 

[radhak]

Have you considered used lenses?

Long ago I decided to try out some used lens, at less than half-price of new, and have never looked back. For your need, the best choice is the Nikon 17-35mm/f2.8. I purchased a used copy off Amazon for $800, and have no regrets. Love the lens, and at a constant 2.8 I never had to worry about VR.

For general purposes, this lens might even be a better choice than the 14-28mm/f2.8, which is way too wide on FX at the lower end of the zoom, and can't use filters.

Buying used lenses on Amazon has been consistently good for me - I skip the cheapest ones, the ones that are marked 'acceptable' or equivalent, and look for something claimed to be 'as new',

 

[Syborg1211]

Used is definitely the way to go! Online I only like to trust vendors like Keh or BH Photo for used equipment. I've bought successfully off eBay as well. Another good option is Craigslist since you get to try it out in person first. Local camera shops also offer this option. Used is good if you know what you're looking for!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm no stranger to used lenses. In fact all but one of my lenses are second-hand AF-D lenses. AF-S is really nice, but I can make do with the older AF tech. I'd rather be able to afford a larger diversity of gear.

I think I've narrowed it down to either the Tokina zoom or the Rokinon prime. My debate now is whether 16mm is wide enough when I also get zoom to 28mm and AF in the deal with the Tokina. It's pretty remarkable the difference between 14mm and 16mm, and I loved shooting my old DX Tokina at even 11mm, plus the Rokinon is a bit cheaper.

Hmmm. I'm leaning toward the Tokina I think, but I don't think I'll be in a position to buy for a bit. Gonna keep mulling it over.

 

[Indus]

I used to use the Tokina 11-16 on my FX D600 too but I've condensed it down to 2 primes.. 35 and 85mm.

If I needed a wideangle, I'd definitely go for the 16-35mm f/4. Reason being nowdays if your FX camera is D600 or better/ newer generation, you can put the ISO higher with minimum image loss. That wasn't the case with D90 or lower cameras.

I've even used ISO 12800 and gotten keepers.

And my favorite lens is the 35mm f/1.8 so the 16-35 allows me to keep that focal length for when I want my favorite shot.

However your preference and mileage may vary as lots of photographers love the 50mm as their favorite lens but I find it awkward.. not enough for full body, not enough for creamy bokeh.. just bland in the middle.

 

[Syborg1211]

I can understand f/4 for 16 to like 24-28mm, but at 35mm you may want shallower depth of field for some portrait-type stuff. If you never shoot people or astrophotographhy, then f/4 is fine though. Landscapes and street are almost always in good light and f/5.6 or higher. So I guess the real question is - what do you intend to shoot?

 

[Indus]

I love primes. I used to always shoot wide open but eventually I settled on f/ 3.5 - 4.5 (usually f/4). Gives me the best sweet spot of fast, sharp and dreamy bokeh.