Would like to get some suggestions for a wide angle prime for my D700. I am alright with 3rd party lenses. I currently have the Sigma 24/1.8, and although it is really sharp, the bokeh is just nor very pleasing to me. If you have some images to share with your suggestion, that would be most helpful.
I just received my Zeiss 18 3.5 and can unconditionally recommend it. There is NO and I mean NO CA that I can find and the flare performance is superb. I am enclosing an image which is poor in the extreme but useful in that the sun is just out of the frame about 1/3 the way from the top left corner. So I think that you have two real choices.......the wonderful 14-24 zoom which of course allows for no filters but has wonderful performance and the primes, including the 18 which, with a few feet of walking covers the 14-24 range pretty well.
Although I am a fan of Zeiss lenses, I was leaning more towards a lens with auto focus. I would also love to have a 14-24, but the inability to use filters is a real turn off for me. Were you going to include an image?
If you're ok with f/2.8, the best wide angle AF prime Nikon makes and can take filters is the 17-35 . If you want faster than f/2.8 your only choices are the 20/1.8 and 24/1.8 Sigmas, the ultra-expensive 28/1.4 AFD and then you go to MF with the 28/2 AI and the Zeiss stuff.
Well, I have the Sig 24/1.8 and am not pleased with its bokeh, so I am selling to a friend who wants it and I just ordered the Sig 20/1.8. Hopefully it will work out better for me. I would love to have the Nikkor 28/1.4...in fact, one just sold the other day for real cheap! I was too late in seeing the posting
Here is an example of the ugly bokey from the 24/1.8, shot wide open
Well I should have clarified...I won't be using this for landscapes, but mostly candids, indoor shots and foilage. For landscapes I will be using my 20-35. I will be mainly shooting the prime lens wide open.
I had a 20/2.8 which I cannot say it had CA, nothing that couldn't be fixed quickly in Lightroom anyway, but I only used it on DX. I don't have any shots showing the bokeh but my general impression was that the 17-35 is better.
I had a 20/2.8 which I cannot say it had CA, nothing that couldn't be fixed quickly in Lightroom anyway, but I only used it on DX. I don't have any shots showing the bokeh but my general impression was that the 17-35 is better.
As much as I'd like to get that lens, I almost have it covered with my 20-35 and it is too expensive for me at this point. And it's not a prime.
Well, I have the Sig 24/1.8 and am not pleased with its bokeh, so I am selling to a friend who wants it and I just ordered the Sig 20/1.8. Hopefully it will work out better for me. I would love to have the Nikkor 28/1.4...in fact, one just sold the other day for real cheap! I was too late in seeing the posting
Here is an example of the ugly bokey from the 24/1.8, shot wide open
You do realize that wide angle zooms have surpassed any wide angle primes right? The 14-24mm whips any prime, the 14mm nikon included. I have the Sigma 12-24mm for my D700 and it's crazy wide. Probably not the sharpest edge to edge, but the edges when that wide are pretty stretched out anyway.
If you MUST get a prime, try the 14mm F/2.8 from either Nikon or Sigma. Thom Hogan has a decent review of the latter.
poisonpill wrote:
You do realize that wide angle zooms have surpassed any wide angle primes right? The 14-24mm whips any prime, the 14mm nikon included. I have the Sigma 12-24mm for my D700 and it's crazy wide. Probably not the sharpest edge to edge, but the edges when that wide are pretty stretched out anyway.
If you MUST get a prime, try the 14mm F/2.8 from either Nikon or Sigma. Thom Hogan has a decent review of the latter.
Good luck and have fun!
Yes, I've known that. But $400 vs. $1800....you do the math lol.
. If you want faster than f/2.8 your only choices are the 20/1.8 and 24/1.8 Sigmas, the ultra-expensive 28/1.4 AFD and then you go to MF with the 28/2 AI and the Zeiss stuff.
