Not to highjack the thread but I am currently looking at the Nikon 14-24mm but the above has been suggested as an alternative to me as well. Is it as good as people say? Do you have hands on experience with it?
popinvasion wrote:
Why not the tokina 16-28 2.8. ?
because it is pretty big and heavy (close to a kg!) and i am really looking for a compact/lightweight option, as i am already carrying D600/ 24-70 / 70-300...
- Get a 16mm/2.8 or /3.5 (or Sigma 15/2.8) fisheye and de-fish it a bit
- Though not a prime, the 18-35/3.5-4.5 Nikon is light and fairly compact, though the corners, unless stopped way down are not the best, though I've seen some nice images taken by it.
- 18/3.5 AI - Same as the zoom, but smaller
If it were me, I'd get one of the fisheyes and the 17/3.5 Tokina - the corners of the Tokina never get sharp, but you can crop them out a bit to get to 18mm-ish if you like. They are not that rare and do come up for sale every so often.
If you’re trying to save on travel weight, my humble suggestion would be to ditch the f/2.8 mid-range zoom and carry a light 50 f/1.8, freeing yourself up to carry a superb wide angle lens. It depends on the sort of photos you want to take of course, but my favorite travel kit to date has been the 14-24, 50 f/1.8, and 70-300.
Frank_Maiello wrote:
If you’re trying to save on travel weight, my humble suggestion would be to ditch the f/2.8 mid-range zoom and carry a light 50 f/1.8, freeing yourself up to carry a superb wide angle lens. It depends on the sort of photos you want to take of course, but my favorite travel kit to date has been the 14-24, 50 f/1.8, and 70-300.
+1 on what Frank says.
My super light weight kit is:
16/3.5 FE
20/2.8D
50/1.8G
105/2.5 AIS (most recently 90/3.5 CV)
and maybe the 70-200/4 AFS if I want something at 200mm . . .
For you that would be:
15/2.8 Sigma FE
20/2.8D (or 18-35/3.5-4.5D)
50/1.8G
70-300VR
That's got a pretty broad range covered with some very decent IQ.
Do you need all the megapixels? Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC is smaller than 12-24. It's like a 15-30 field of view because your camera will switch to DX mode.
But I agree with the suggestion that a 50mm f/1.8 can substitute for your midrange zoom and give you room for a heavier wide lens.
I also agree that the Tokina 16-28 is heavy. You're better off carrying the Nikon 16-35 if you want a wide zoom that goes to 16.
photosteph wrote:
Mmmh fish and de-fish, never tought about that option...
I'll investigate.
Tks for the suggestions...
(but not ready to ditch my beloved 24-70)
Steph
If you do go the fisheye/de-fish route, check out Image Trends' Fisheye-Hemi plug-in. I'm not terribly impressed with the results of completely de-fishing an image because it stretches the corners too much, but Fisheye-Hemi effectively corrects vertical lines only, resulting in a much nicer-looking image.
Vox Sciurorum wrote:
Do you need all the megapixels? Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC is smaller than 12-24. It's like a 15-30 field of view because your camera will switch to DX mode.
.
The sigma 12-24 he's talking about is an FX lens....12mm on FX is wider than 10mm on DX...
i will second the tokina 17mm atx-pro f3.5. i owned the 14-24 and it was just too expensive and large for the limited amount that i actually use UWA. usually i can get away with 24mm of my 24-70, so i really wasnt using the 14-24 much.
anyways the 17mm atx-pro uses 77mm filters, and is a very sharp lens with limited distortion. and you cannot beat its small size and cheap price around $300 should get you a good condition one.
