p.1 #1 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
Howdy folks,
Just made the jump to a D700 from a D300 and its amazing. However as you all know its time to upgrade the glass and ditch the DX lenses. One of my favorite DX lenses was the Tokina 11-16; love going wide. I know you can use it on the FX but basically its as a cheap prime lens. I want to take advantage of zooming in and out.
I cant afford the mother of all lenses (14-24; I know I know I should have bought glass over bodies) and thus have done copious amounts of research on UWA for FX. I am going to include my cost benefit analysis hoping it will help someone down the road, and if anyone has any tips do chime in!
Basically I am leaning towards the nikon 17-35 2.8 or tokina's 16-28 2.8..
Rest of my gear: D700, 50mm f/1.4D, 80-200 f2/.8 & D300 (with 16-85 VR for sale, and tokina 11-16 for sale).
Tokina 16-28 f/2.8
$650-900, no filters
+comparable to 14-24, build quality
-front cap can fall off
-bulbous, heavy, no filters
Nikon 17-35 f/2.8
$850-1300, 77mm
+fast, sharp
-heavy, price, corners not as sharp wide open as 16-35
+short, excellent flare/ghosting characteristics
-AF could squeak, meaning soon failure
+BEST IQ, holds value, good build quality
+rated best by kenrockwell (which might be irrelevant)
Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR
$1110-1300, 77mm
+sharp, VR, corners quite sharp wide open
-long, focusing issues on d700
+lightest and cheapest
-small corner vignetting, lots distortion at 16mm
-weaker build quality
p.1 #3 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
The 16-28 is a very good lens. I rented a D800E a week ago anticipating buying one; wanted to take it for a test drive. I shot it with most of my lenses, including the 16-28 and it delivered nicely. I did own the 14-24 some time ago and while I can't really say the 16-28 is it's equal, for the money you pay its really quite close.
The lens cap is a pain but Tokina has fixed that and delivered a new pinch cap on new lenses. I sent them a copy of my receipt for the 16-28 and they have a new lens cap on the way to me. Pretty good service from Tokina.
p.1 #4 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
Honestly I was leaning towards the tokina then I found out it does not take filters. I love my CP filter (77mm) that I use on my 80-200 but most specifically on my 11-16. It was a few hundred dollars as its high quality and I really want to have a CP filter for my wide angle. Which is why I am leaning towards the 17-35 now
p.1 #6 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
Yes I have (as you noted). Also I was not very impressed with it the other day, seems a fair amount of distortion and lack of sharpness (examples on my flickr). And for $500 or so I would rather pay a few hundred more for an actual FX UWA
p.1 #9 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
Great thread. I just bought a D600. I have a 70-200 2.8 VRII but I also need to go wide for less... way less. I'd love to hear more about the 20D and 24D.
I have a Tamron 28-75 too that works but is not a great copy.
p.1 #11 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
I wouldn't care for filter accepting on UWA when it is only for a CP. A CP on a UWA gives most of the time not a good effect, because the polarizing effect changes on the photo due to the big angle of the lens.
p.1 #12 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
It looks like you've talked yourself into the 17-35, which makes perfect sense, but if you still want to save up for the 14-24, perhaps a much less expensive 20mm AI-S or AF-D prime is in order.
p.1 #13 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
I have owned the Tokina 17-35 (with Canon 5D2), 17-35mm (D3), 16-28 (D800) and the 20 AFD.
I currently have the last two. The little 20 gets the most use. The 16-28 is really good for the money, but it is huge and doesn't accept filters.
p.1 #14 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
I don't think there is anything as good as the 11-16mm on FX. I went from a D300 a D700 and also had a 11-16mm. I have the 17-35mm and whilst its a great lens, it isn't quite as good as the 11-16mm on DX
p.1 #15 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
pr4photos wrote:
I don't think there is anything as good as the 11-16mm on FX. I went from a D300 a D700 and also had a 11-16mm. I have the 17-35mm and whilst its a great lens, it isn't quite as good as the 11-16mm on DX
Good to know, gosh the 11-16 is a beast on a DX. Thanks for the heads up so Im not disappointed.
p.1 #16 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
My vote is for the 16-28!! I have that lens and love it! When I first bought it, I was comparing it to all of the other lenses you listed but decided with Tokina in the end. It's widest end is absolutely perfect for panoramas or basically anything you need to shoot at an extreme wide angle. The lens cap can come off easily as you mentioned but I use velcro strips to keep it on.
Here's some of my photos taken with the 16-28:
p.1 #18 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
Was wondering what folks thought about the Tokina 17-35. Advantages are that it is lightweight, uses filters, and is much more affordable. Heard that it was soft wide open but is as sharp as the Nikon 16-35 in the F8/F9 range, which is where I would use it most of the time (for landscapes). If you were using it solely for landscapes, would you have any issues with this lens?
Would be great if there were any actual users out there who could chime in.
p.1 #20 · Best Ultra Wide Angle for FX (On a budget, ie not 14-24)
After more research it sounds like the 16-35 is sharper all around than the 17-35. also the 16-35 is weather sealed which has me really thinking about going for it..
