+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If my information was misleading or incorrect, that's on me, but why do you choose to keep this thread going by criticizing me when you should be addressing the OP's original questions ? Is your mission upon this venue to criticize guys like me who may have given questionable information or do you think that it might be better if you were stick to the issue at hand and give the OP a good answer to his question ? And, while you are at it, take off that hat of yours and show us your true identity ? Are you bald and don't like a shining dome and do you wear a beard to cover other features of which you are not pleased ?

If you look up Mr. Floyd Davidson - aka Apaflo, he has quite a reputation for all sorts of things I would not want to anything to do with - and apparently he's been at it for quite some time -

http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=73651

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50358552

http://majikimaje.com/WordPress/tag/floyd-davidson/

http://majikimaje.com/WordPress/2010/04/28/floyd-davidson-barrows-pathological-liar/

http://www.ozzu.com/photography-forum/high-the-arctic-eskimo-t77319-30.html

http://majikimaje.com/WordPress/2008/05/19/very-sad-but-very-true/

http://ne.weather.narkive.com/mK0V5umq/pscreaming-psylvia-pstrikes-again-was-re-floyd-davidson-exposed-again-as-a-lying-con-artist

http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/forums/digital-photo/lightroom-vs-aperture-curves-322692.html

http://www.autosdrive.com/hey-floyd-davidson-i-seem-to-recall-your-stance

http://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/apaflo.com

http://www.adras.com/birds.t32911-166-3.html

http://www.photography-forums.com/threads/35mm-film-photography-comeback.228300/

http://majikimaje.com/WordPress/tag/davidson/\

It seems he can never pass up an opportunity to hijack a thread and sink it into controversy, ending in an all-out pissing match. And of course, he is NEVER wrong. He just can't help himself.

Very sad. . .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, here we go again ~ another little man with nothing else to do but to lie in wait for someone as myself to post something that can be interpreted in a way whereby the little man can distort that which I've said just so he can jump in to inflate his small man ego while hiding behind his PC acting like a hero with a piss ant brain !

Listen up, hero ~ in the world of photography, when a person refers to a lens having nomenclature such as f1.4, the person is referring to the speed of the lens or the aperture of the lens and when a person is referring to nomenclature such as 1:4, the person most often is speaking of the ratio of magnification in relationship to the latent image's size on the film's plain and or the sensor in a camera compared to the actual size of the subject.

In no way was I suggesting that Nikon makes a lens as the OP had mentioned and the lens have a fast 1.4 aperture nor was I suggesting that Nikon makes a lens as the OP had mentioned with a zoom range ratio of 1:4 !

I suggest that you spend more of your time trying to answer the OP's question and spend less time attempting to defame others and or the posted responses that others have made attempting to help the OP. AND, if you want to impress others, why don't you do or say something that merits impressing others in lieu of your trying to make others look as meaninglessly goofy as are you ! AND, when you were a kid, were you a hall monitor or did you spend most of your idle time trying to scorch insects such as piss ants with sunlight focused upon them with a magnifying glass ~ of which you seem to have become one yourself !

This lens, along with the similarly priced but older Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 are very popular among RE guys and gals. Both are sharp, and both produce really crisp and contrasty images.

My personal preference is to shoot a longer focal length, with the camera in portrait orientation, and create a 2-4 shot pano. Longer focal lengths will give you a more natural perspective (front parts of the image in proportion to objects in the back), and if you need wider, just add another shot, overlapping each at least 50%. Photoshop and PT/GUI make short work of the stitching process, and your images will have a look that is a cut or two above the images taken by everyone else typically using ultrawide lenses.

Bob, a little further up in this thread, I posted a couple of images. One was shot with an ultrawide - 14mm on a D800 - and the other was shot with a 24mm, D800 - and you can see for yourself the differences in perspective distortion. The ultrawide has considerable volume anamorphosis, you can see the round planter on the right is oval shaped, and there is a mailbox on the left that just looks "wrong" - dramatic, but wrong. And of course the depth in the scene is exaggerated in the 14mm shot.

The 24mm shot even offers a wider view, but considerably less distortion, and no deformation of circular objects. I use this technique often when doing interior shots. But sometimes, a room is so small, like a powder room, that the ultrawide may be the only way to go. It's best to have lots of tools and the knowledge of when to use the best one for the best results.