Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Trying to decide on wide angle lens
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Sep 9, 2017 14:36:30   #
RonM12 Loc: Washington State
 
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wondering if I should have parted with it. When I bought it I also considered the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, which I've read is actually better not only in value, but image quality compared to the Nikon. I do a lot of landscape photography using at the moment, the D810. However, I like the flexibility of using filters, and I didn't see myself using the giant adapters and filters needed for either the Tamron or Nikon. My dilemma now has to do with purchasing either the Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 wide angle zooms. Reviews on the 18-35 seem to indicate the images are sharper over the 16-35 and it's not as heavy. Another thought, since I have the 24-120 f/4 maybe the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 prime lens is the way to go? The zooms offer some flexibility and all 3 of thes lens are similarly priced. Any thoughts/suggestions from the group Wouk be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Reply
Sep 9, 2017 15:35:12   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
RonM12 wrote:
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wondering if I should have parted with it. When I bought it I also considered the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, which I've read is actually better not only in value, but image quality compared to the Nikon. I do a lot of landscape photography using at the moment, the D810. However, I like the flexibility of using filters, and I didn't see myself using the giant adapters and filters needed for either the Tamron or Nikon. My dilemma now has to do with purchasing either the Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 wide angle zooms. Reviews on the 18-35 seem to indicate the images are sharper over the 16-35 and it's not as heavy. Another thought, since I have the 24-120 f/4 maybe the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 prime lens is the way to go? The zooms offer some flexibility and all 3 of thes lens are similarly priced. Any thoughts/suggestions from the group Wouk be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wonde... (show quote)


I would go with the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 . Great sharp lens on a superb 810.

Reply
Sep 9, 2017 15:38:53   #
rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin
 
Please correct the title of this post to specify Nikon. Thank you.

Reply
 
 
Sep 9, 2017 18:06:50   #
RonM12 Loc: Washington State
 
Thanks, I was leaning in that direction.

Reply
Sep 9, 2017 18:11:20   #
RonM12 Loc: Washington State
 
If I knew how to edit the title I'd do so. if I may ask, why is it a problem?

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 06:42:45   #
Mary Kate Loc: NYC
 
RonM12 wrote:
If I knew how to edit the title I'd do so. if I may ask, why is it a problem?


Yeah....let me second that. No, problem He is just being "prickly"

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 06:47:59   #
tcthome Loc: NJ
 
Could always rent the lenses for a comparison to see wich 1 you like best. I too own the 14 - 24 nikon. I don't mind buying the filters for it but , they wiil be huge on my other lenses not wanting to purchase 2 seperate sets.

Reply
 
 
Sep 10, 2017 07:08:26   #
cameraf4 Loc: Delaware
 
I have both the 20mm and the 18-35mm you mentioned. Both are great for sharpness and color. 20mm definitely does not use big filters. Can't see you being disappointed with either.

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 08:30:46   #
ranman
 
First I have the Nikkor 12-24mm and the Lee Filter systems its really not the bad but guess that does you no good because you have already sold your 12-24mm lens. I would probably go with the 16-35mm because it gives you some wiggle room and you might come across a shot where you need that. Go back through your metadata and see what focal length you use the most is it near 20? 18? 24? if you notice a pattern get that length as a prime. I do the same thing with Lenses always looking for better and sharper.

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 10:29:16   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
RonM12 wrote:
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wondering if I should have parted with it. When I bought it I also considered the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, which I've read is actually better not only in value, but image quality compared to the Nikon. I do a lot of landscape photography using at the moment, the D810. However, I like the flexibility of using filters, and I didn't see myself using the giant adapters and filters needed for either the Tamron or Nikon. My dilemma now has to do with purchasing either the Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 wide angle zooms. Reviews on the 18-35 seem to indicate the images are sharper over the 16-35 and it's not as heavy. Another thought, since I have the 24-120 f/4 maybe the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 prime lens is the way to go? The zooms offer some flexibility and all 3 of thes lens are similarly priced. Any thoughts/suggestions from the group Wouk be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wonde... (show quote)


I would get the 20mm prime. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and better IQ!

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 11:37:06   #
SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX
 
I have had both the Nikon 20/f1.8 and the 16 to 35/f4. Both lens are sharp with the edge going to the 20/f1.8. However, due to the versatility of the 16 to 35/f4 I used this lens more often. Yes, the 16 to 35/f4 is heavier.

Reply
 
 
Sep 10, 2017 11:48:36   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
RonM12 wrote:
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wondering if I should have parted with it. When I bought it I also considered the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, which I've read is actually better not only in value, but image quality compared to the Nikon. I do a lot of landscape photography using at the moment, the D810. However, I like the flexibility of using filters, and I didn't see myself using the giant adapters and filters needed for either the Tamron or Nikon. My dilemma now has to do with purchasing either the Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 wide angle zooms. Reviews on the 18-35 seem to indicate the images are sharper over the 16-35 and it's not as heavy. Another thought, since I have the 24-120 f/4 maybe the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 prime lens is the way to go? The zooms offer some flexibility and all 3 of thes lens are similarly priced. Any thoughts/suggestions from the group Wouk be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Having just sold my Nikon 14-24, I'm sort of wonde... (show quote)


My wides are both Zeiss, one is the 18 3.5 and the 21mm 2.8. Both are incredibly sharp. They are manual focus with the chip so that when in focus the green circle shows in the finder of my D810.

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 13:30:50   #
RonM12 Loc: Washington State
 
Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and suggestions. I don't think I could go wrong with any of them, I'll need to stop by my local camera shop, Pro Photo Supply to take a closer look. Thank you again.

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 14:15:09   #
Mary Kate Loc: NYC
 
RonM12 wrote:
Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and suggestions. I don't think I could go wrong with any of them, I'll need to stop by my local camera shop, Pro Photo Supply to take a closer look. Thank you again.


If you let us know what you bought, make sure to title it, Nikon.

Reply
Sep 10, 2017 14:30:25   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
CatMarley wrote:
I would get the 20mm prime. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and better IQ!

But not so good when best image requires more width than that.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.