jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Have you considered Tokina? That what I use (16-28mm).

https://www.adorama.com/us1308241.html?gclid=cjwkcajwwab7brbaeiwaapqpte4nty4-xlkqaygf75-rdnqtbmdnnnfvruwcb7sylczm9ztokqknoxockduqavd_bwe&utm_source=adl-gbase
https://www.adorama.com/l/?searchinfo=tokina%2016-28mm&sel=item-condition_used-items

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I have 2 D-850s & a variety of Nikon lenses. Keeping with shooting FX, the Nikon 14-24 is a great lens, however it does not allow for a filter. I do a lot of time lapse both in the day & in the night, so that left the 14-24 out right away. I have looked at Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon and their offerings. I had located one with a substantial financial savings over Nikon, however the lens size was 82 mm & finding a ND 10 filter was cost prohibitive. Filter cost almost as much as the lens. I opted for the Nikon (refurbished) 16-35mm as 16mm is the sweet spot that I need for my work.

CWGordon

I have the Nikon 14-24. It is a terrific lens. However, it is quite a heavy lens. This is something one might need to consider, depending on how and for what you intend to use it. I find that I rarely (almost never) use it. When travelling I use the 24-120. Plenty of range for almost anything. I also have the 24-70. It “might” be a hair more sharp, but I like the extra 50mm of reach on the 24-120. It is plenty sharp and a bit more light and manageable.
Cost is a factor to be balanced against how much you think you will actually use it. Good luck with your choice.

ksmmike

I only mentioned it in case he didn't know that the 20mm is considered the go to lens for astro by many Nikon shooters. People can get so touchy here. jeesh.

User ID

Sooooo touchy. Within a few posts of his opener the OP plainly added that he just wants a sharp wide angle zoom for his landscape work. The 20/1.8 is the go-to astro lens ? Uh huh. Thaz very nice. But there’s a discrepancy of hundreds of light years between your subject and the OP’s landscapes. Notice the word “land” ?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ultra wide angle lenses are a very touchy subject to give counsel on. There are many misunderstandings around what they are good for and what problems they can solve and what problems they usually create. I never give recommendations to purchase any specific lens, because 90% or more of the time the f/2.8 zooms end up either just sitting on the shelf or sold at a big loss. You can go right now and find literally hundreds of Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 lenses for sale on a multitude of sites.

My suggestion to anyone who has not used a lens wider than 24mm before and does not have a specific purpose in mind is to buy an inexpensive alternative rather than a top line lens. I started with a used 18-35mm variable aperture lens that I bought for not a lot of money. It's not a particularly good lens, but it let me see what was possible. (I do use it as a normal wide on my DX cameras, because they do not use the corners that are so bad.) Once I had a purpose that would insure that I kept using the lens, I bought the Nikkor 14-24. I use it extensively for my intended purpose, but not for landscapes. They are really not particularly good for that (too limiting on composition because of the way they bend the horizon) or people (too much unattractive distortion of features or relative sizes due to forced perspective). They can be difficult to use for architecture, because they are not corrected for a flat field, and there are a number of other challenges that have to be learned and planned around. Most folks simply don't have the disposition or patience to deal with all of that.

There's also a lot of disconnect between perceived problems and actual usage. Gene mentioned above that the 14-24 is not a good night sky lens because of the coma distortion. Actually it is a great night sky lens because the other distortions are very favorable compared with other lenses, and the coma can be easily dealt with. You just have to be aware of it and either avoid it or correct it.

So...if the idea is for landscape, my suggestion is to ease in and don't spend a lot of money. It may not work out for you. But if you have a plan, it may make more sense to jump in at the deep end of the pool.

tca2267 Loc: Florida

Thanks
I am leaning toward the Tamron.........What type filters do you use?...Cost?.....
the only type filter I would be interested in at this time would be a ND filter.

Did you send the lens to Tamron and have it calibrated or did you do it yourself?

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

ksmmike

Relax,

Jeesh, I had just read another thread where someone wanted astro and I made a mistake thinking it was the same thread. I'll do my best to not make another mistake here or elsewhere.

Dalek Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown

I was in a similar conundrum a few months ago relative to wide angle. After trying a few lenses I decided on the Tamrom 15-30. I use it on my D850 and it is just what I wanted: Very good build, great aperture, and stabilization. Couldn't be more pleased with the lens. In fact I also bought a Tamron 35-150 as my new walk around lens. Good luck and keep shooting.

RLSprouse Loc: Encinitas CA (near Sandy Eggo)

I have the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G and it is a superb lens, but the lack of a straightforward way to use filters is a real problem. I just found a solution in the FotoDiox WonderPana Classic 145mm CPL Kit. It isn't cheap, and is a rather massive setup when assembled onto the lens, but now I can use a circular polarizer and neutral density filters. I haven't had an opportunity to put it to use yet, but it seems like a good solution.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I think you will find that a CPL is not as useful as you might think when used on an ultrawide lens. The polarization effect has a strong dependence on the angle between the source and the observer (your camera). If I am wrong, I invite you to show some examples of your shots. I have attached one of my examples below. It was taken with a D200 (DX camera) with a 17mm focal length, which would be pretty close to a FX camera with a 24mm focal length. The variation of the polarization is clear in the sky.

My comment applies only to CPL filters. Neutral density filters are a whole nother subject.

Variation of polarization in the sky with a wide angle lens

RLSprouse Loc: Encinitas CA (near Sandy Eggo)

When you're talking about a wide open blue sky, yes, you are going to get the kind of effect you have illustrated. But polarizers aren't just to make sky blue. That's easy in Photoshop. Polarizers cut specular reflections, which are far more prevalent than you would think. Glossy foliage, for example, can be greatly enhanced with the cirpol.

And ND filters are really useful, as I'm sure you know. So yes, I'm looking forward to using this bit of kit.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I should note that specular reflections from dielectric (non-metallic) surfaces also have a strong variation in the degree of polarization with angle from the source.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Tamron 15-30mm, Nikon 14-24mm, Sigma 14-24mm and Tokina 16-28mm are all rather big, heavy lenses.... all are over 2 lb. Other than the Tokina, close to 2.5 lb., in fact.

Another thing... all four of them have protruding, strongly convex front elements. They can't be fitted with standard filters. In some cases, there are specialized filter holder that clamp onto the front barrel of the lens, to hold square and rectangular 100mm or larger filters. Those are a pain in the arse to pack and carry around. Plus they're expensive. And virtually impossible to shade very effectively, when that's needed. The lenses themselves have relatively shallow built in tulip shaped hoods. But the clamp on filter holders and filters make those ineffective. Also, special lens caps are usually required by these lenses. If you lose one, you'll probably have to special order a replacement, if it's even available a few years from now. An alternative is a Hood Hat, a stretchy neoprene lens cover from the folks who make Lens Coats, etc.

Do you reaallllyy need f/2.8? Most daytime landscape shots are done stopped down at least to a middle aperture. If you were planning to do astrophotography, maybe f/2.8 would be helpful when trying to set up your shot in the dark. Sports photographers, folks shooting architectural interiors and photojournalists might want and need f/2.8 (or even faster). But do you really need it? You only mention shooting landscapes.

The reason I ask is the Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Lens... Yes, it's "only" f/4. But this allows it to be smaller, lighter (1.5 lb.) and nicer to carry if you'll be hiking any distance. It's also less expensive... just under $1000, where the f/2.8 lenses start at $1200 and go up from there. Plus, you can use standard 77mm filters with it. I don't shoot with Nikon, so don't have hands-on experience with this or the other lenses on a high resolution D850... but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the f/4 lens was sharper and better corrected, too. Often premium f/4 lenses are sharper corner to corner. f/2.8 lenses sometimes get a bit soft in the corners, although they usually improve when stopped down.... But then you paid for a bigger aperture and carried around a heavier lens, just to end up stopping it down anyway.

Two millimeters... 14mm versus 16mm... is very significant at the wide end of things. It would be imperceptible in a telephoto lens, but is noticeable in an ultrawide. Still, 16mm is pretty darned wide!

They aren't as versatile as a zoom... but someone mentioned a Nikkor 20mm prime as a smaller, lighter, less expensive option. I agree (and carry a 20mm lens a lot). There are also some pretty impressive 14mm and 15mm primes.

Yes, I often use a Circular Polarizer on wide lenses. For both the images below I used a B+W Kaesemann C-Pol. In the first, the sun was above and behind me so the filter's effect is fairly even across the entire scene. I actually "dialed it back" a little, to retain the reflection of the boats in the water. The filter deepened the blue of the sky and the green of the water, while making the white of the fishing boats really "pop". For the shot of the lighthouse, the sun was low and off to the left, so the filter's effect in the sky is uneven. I decided to use the effect, rather than try to avoid it (which would have been impossible anyway).



Here's another shot of the same lighthouse from a different angle on a different day, made with the same lens and C-Pol , where I also don't feel the uneven effect does any harm to the image (sun off to the right and low on the horizon)...



Here are two more lighthouse photos... older shots that were done with film cameras, the wide end of a 17-35mm lens and B+W Kaesemann C-Pol filter



So, yeah, I often use C-Pol... even on wide angle lenses. And not just for shots of lighthouses, either



Besides, it's not just C-Pol filters... some landscape photographers also like to use Neutral Density filters in various strengths, to be able to do longer exposures that cause water to blur.

For that reason, I'm not a fan of lenses with convex front elements that make filters difficult or impossible. (I really appreciate the cool, drop-in filter lens adapter that Canon came up with for their RF system, which is now also being offered by Breakthrough Photography... filters behind the lens, instead of in front of it! This solves the filter problem with this type of lens. So maybe I'll get that 17mm Tilt-Shift lens in the future, after all.)