p.1 #1 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
Similar to the 70-200 2.8 thread which helped me decide which lens I needed to lust for, how has the dust settled on wide zooms for the F mount?
From what I understand on almost decades old information, the following lenses seem to be the top runners.
Nikon 14-24 2.8G
Nikon 16-35 4 ED
Nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5G
Nikon 20-35 2.8D
Tamron SP 15-30 2.8 (G1 vs G2?)
I do want to add a primes list for fun, though personally I don't know how well I would get along with one. I know I want to try wide angle photography but have no idea if I will like really wide, or if more of my shots will fall in the 20-24mm range that a lot of popular primes cover. Primary uses will be landscape, architectural, and astro looks like fun.
p.1 #2 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
The Sigma 14–24mm f/2.8 ART is probably the absolute best option for an ultra wide zoom on F-mount, nearly (or every bit as) high-performing as some of the extremely good ultra wides more recently released for mirrorless mounts.
If you aren’t sure if ultra wide is for you, one of the more moderate options that goes to 35mm might be better and give you focal lengths you’ll use more often. In that case, the Tamron 17–35mm f/2.8–4 Di OSD is worth a look, and gives better performance than Nikon’s options in that range.
p.1 #3 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
ahinesdesign wrote:
The Sigma 14–24mm f/2.8 ART is probably the absolute best option for an ultra wide zoom on F-mount, nearly (or every bit as) high-performing as some of the extremely good ultra wides more recently released for mirrorless mounts.
Plus, it offers the added benefit of saving you the cost of a gym membership; instead of spending time in the weight room, you can use that time to take photos—and you’ll still get a workout.
May my 14-30/4 S always be blessed
p.1 #4 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
ahinesdesign wrote:
If you aren’t sure if ultra wide is for you, one of the more moderate options that goes to 35mm might be better and give you focal lengths you’ll use more often. In that case, the Tamron 17–35mm f/2.8–4 Di OSD is worth a look, and gives better performance than Nikon’s options in that range.
I have a Nikon 24-70 2.8, so I have a fair amount of that range covered already. I want to go wide baby...WIDE!!
Ripolini wrote:
Plus, it offers the added benefit of saving you the cost of a gym membership; instead of spending time in the weight room, you can use that time to take photos—and you’ll still get a workout.
I don't mind carrying around some weight, it is a good workout!
p.1 #5 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
Nikon never made a 16-35/2.8G. It's either the 17-35/2.8G or the 16-35/4 VR (so it's lower overall resolution with faster speed and lower distortion or higher resolution, slower speed, much more distortion, more weight). Neither are perfect, but you can put a filter on them without having to go with an expensive and large solution. The AFD 20-35/2.8 isn't vastly different optically from the 17-35 in the shared range, and it is much smaller. Plus, there's no AF motor to give out on you (the 17-35 is a ticking timebomb of failure there). If that range does it for you, I recommend it.
Forgot to add: The 18-35G is a light-build little wonder, especially for the average used price. I used mine mostly at f/5.6 or 8 and wasn't ever displeased with it post correction. It could be a good way to figure out if 20 is wide enough.
Left field suggestion; the Laowa 14/4 for Nikon F. The light stars can get a little extreme for night shooting, which is why I ultimately traded mine off, but it's low distortion, solid resolution and can take at least one filter without an issue. If you want to stack, best to step it up to 77mm and use thin filters.
p.1 #6 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
Have owned the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 G and 16-35mm f/4 G. Loved the 14-24mm, found almost no use at all for the 16-35mm. The latter was not sharp enough for me toward the corners, and I found a big difference between the views at 14mm vs 16mm. Plus, the f/2.8 aperture was important for nightscapes.
This said, plenty of good photographers had the opposite preference between these two lenses--to each his own.
The Sigma Art 14-24 f/2.8 is an interesting suggestion. No personal experience with it, but the two Sigma Art lenses I have are excellent, so I'd certainly consider that line.
Fun problem to have! You'll likely enjoy having something really wide.
p.1 #7 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
I am a big fan of the 18-35mm G zoom. You can get them used for less than $200 and they have excellent sharpness at f5.6-8 which is usually where I would use them. They're also small, lightweight, and take a 77mm filter. I generally would use it around 20-24mm.
I owned the 14-24mm f2.8 for a little bit, but just found it too fussy keeping the front element clean, as you can't put a front filter on it. I'd always accidentally get a fingerprint on it. Plus it's pretty large in size with that integrated hood.
Never owned the 16-35 f4 G, as I'd heard it was pretty middle of the road in terms of sharpness, and it's nearly as large as a 24-70 f2.8.
Also tried the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, which was soft until stopped down to around f5.6, but not a bad option and pretty inexpensive. For me, the 18-35 G always won out for f-mount wide zooms.
For z-mount, still really happy with the 14-30mm f4 that I purchased when the Z7 first came out. Totally acceptable sharpness wide open, and even better stopped down a bit.
p.1 #8 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
I'm also a fan of the 18-35 G. I use it on everything from N75 to Z8. Very convenient and capable lens.
But I think the 14-24 is the quintessential UWA experience. And it will have a significantly wider FOV than the 18-35. If you don't know whether or not you like ultra-wide and you've already got the 24-70, spending some time with the 14-24 makes sense.
The 20-35 and the 17-35 that replaced it both feel more like PJ/documentary lenses to me than landscape/astro lenses, but I've seen the 17-35 used for absolutely everything. Always wanted to try both, but haven't yet.
p.1 #9 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
I thought the consensus at this point is that you should just be shooting Z if you have deep interest in wide angle lenses because they are that much measurably better.
p.1 #10 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
jonshonda wrote:
I have a Nikon 24-70 2.8, so I have a fair amount of that range covered already. I want to go wide baby...WIDE!!
In that case, check out the Sigma 12–24mm f/4 Art. Yes, it’s huge and only f/4, but fisheyes are about the only thing with a wider field of view on F mount!
I can echo all of the recommendations for the 18–35mm G, it’s a sweet wide angle lens that is light weight and a solid performer. It’s just not all that wide compared to lenses that start at 14mm…
p.1 #11 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
Nikon 14-24 2.8G: This lens was my favorite lens ever for f mount. I'll bet that at least 80% of my shots with this lens were between 14-18mm. The wide end is really fun.
Nikon 16-35 f4G: This is one of the biggest duds I've ever owned. The corner sharpness should be called corner blurriness on this lens.
p.1 #12 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
OffTrail wrote:
I'm also a fan of the 18-35 G. I use it on everything from N75 to Z8. Very convenient and capable lens.
But I think the 14-24 is the quintessential UWA experience. And it will have a significantly wider FOV than the 18-35. If you don't know whether or not you like ultra-wide and you've already got the 24-70, spending some time with the 14-24 makes sense.
Sounds like the 18-35 is a good little brother for the 14-24. Something you throw in the bag when you wanna hit the road and travel light?
RoamingScott wrote:
I thought the consensus at this point is that you should just be shooting Z if you have deep interest in wide angle lenses because they are that much measurably better.
Not at all relevant to my interests at this point, but nice try. I also don't have a DEEP interest, just a curiosity.
ahinesdesign wrote:
In that case, check out the Sigma 12–24mm f/4 Art. Yes, it’s huge and only f/4, but fisheyes are about the only thing with a wider field of view on F mount!
I can echo all of the recommendations for the 18–35mm G, it’s a sweet wide angle lens that is light weight and a solid performer. It’s just not all that wide compared to lenses that start at 14mm…
I'm assuming the 14-18mm could be beneficial, and it sounds like if I don't go super wide the 18-35 G is the clear winner.
Steezus wrote:
Nikon 14-24 2.8G: This lens was my favorite lens ever for f mount. I'll bet that at least 80% of my shots with this lens were between 14-18mm. The wide end is really fun.
I do have a feeling that if I am in the "wide mindset" on a particular day, that I am going to want as wide as I can afford. haha
p.1 #13 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
You should definitely skip the 16-35 f/4. It’s just not up to sniff in terms of sharpness, chromatic aberrations, etc. The Nikon 14-24 was a spectacular lens, although it makes filters difficult. The Tamron was very well regarded when it was released, but I never used it personally.
One thing I don’t see on your lists is Zeiss prime lenses. They made a 15mm, 18mm, and 21mm that were all fantastic. They’re manual focus, but it’s pretty hard to mess up focus when shooting that wide. Zeiss also had two versions, the Distagon and the Milvus. As I understand it, there was no difference optically between those versions. I had the 21mm until very recently. If you don’t want to mess with filters on a 14-24, I’d strongly suggest the old Zeiss lenses (and would just get the Distagon versions to save money).
p.1 #14 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
To expand on what Scott wrote, the difference between the AF-S 14-24/2.8G and the Z14-24/2.8S is great enough that when I compared them on both 24MP and 45MP Z cameras, the decision to dump the 14-24G was easy.
p.1 #15 · What Is The Consensus On Wide Zooms For Nikon F Mount?
In my experience, the image quality of the Sigma 14–24mm Art (F mount) is within spitting distance of the Nikon Z 14–24. All of the other F mount ultrawides are behind, and some are extremely far behind.
I agree that overall, ultrawide primes and zooms have a distinct advantage in mirrorless mounts, both in image quality and especially size/weight reduction. The OP didn’t ask what mount should be chosen for the best ultrawide, rather what is a good option for the mount they are shooting with. Many older ultrawides are poor performers by today’s standards, but one can still capture great images with lenses that might not be state of the art…
