Wide Angle Prime or Zoom? I own a Nikon D750 and my lenses include Nikon's 85mm f1.4, 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f4. I want to get a wide angle for landscapes but I just don't want the...

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

I own a Nikon D750 and my lenses include Nikon's 85mm f1.4, 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f4. I want to get a wide angle for landscapes but I just don't want the bulbous front on the 14-24mm. I use NISI filters on many occasions and want a bit more ease attaching the filter system. I've had my eye on the Nikon 16-35mm f4 and the prime 20mm f1.8 but I would love your advice on a wide angle you use that I haven't researched or if I'm on the right track with one of these two lenses. Thank you in advance.

richandtd Loc: Virginia

They both sound good but I prefer the 17mm- 35mm 2.8 with the 77mm filter

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

I own the 16-35. It’s a good tool. Doubt you’d be disappointed. Standard filters are common. I also own an older 20mm but it’s f2.8. I like it also but tend to use it for milky way type shots because of the 2.8. For a walk around the 16-35 is hard to beat on the Nikon. Very versatile.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The 24-70 should be good.
(I have an 18-200 that lives on my APS-C camera. It allows me to adjust composition in the camera where a fixed focal length would not. But that's my preference.)
No matter what one has, there are probably instances where one could go wider.

Polarizers don't bode well usually on anything less than ≈35mm, they make the sky funny on one side.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

A 20mm f/2.8 would be a good addition.
--Bob

Golden Rule wrote:

I own a Nikon D750 and my lenses include Nikon's 8... (show quote)

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

Longshadow wrote:

The 24-70 should be good.
(I have an 18-200 that lives on my APS-C camera. It allows me to adjust composition in the camera where a fixed focal length would not. But that's my preference.)
No matter what one has, there are probably instances where one could go wider.

Polarizers don't bode well usually on anything less than ≈35mm, they make the sky funny on one side.

There have been a number of instances where I needed a wider angle than 24mm and could not step back or could not capture the whole composition the way I wanted. That is the reason for a wider lens. I have a few ND filters and the 3,6,9 stop filters for long exposures that are plates not screw on filters.

davesit Loc: Lansing, New York

They are both excellent lenses. I have the 16-35mm F4 and it's my go-to lens for landscape. Very sharp and versatile and much less cumbersome than the 14-24, plus you get more zoom range. The 20mm F1.8 is also a great lens, especially for astrophotography. I think if general landscape is your need, you'll find more utility with the 16-35.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Golden Rule wrote:

There have been a number of instances where I needed a wider angle than 24mm and could not step back or could not capture the whole composition the way I wanted. That is the reason for a wider lens. I have a few ND filters and the 3,6,9 stop filters for long exposures that are plates not screw on filters.

Yup, same with the 18.
If I got a 12, I'm sure there would continue to be instances where I wanted something wider.
(That's why one can merge images.

)

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

Longshadow wrote:

Yup, same with the 18.
If I got a 12, I'm sure there would continue to be instances where I wanted something wider.
(That's why one can merge images.

)

Ha! Know what you mean! I think that is one reason I'm researching to death the 20mm lens.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I like primes, but find the wide angle zoom covering 16-35 more useful than the 24mm prime I used to have. I'd expect the same for 20mm or wider, great when they're the right lens, more often too limiting when getting closer or stepping back isn't an option that the zoom can address.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Golden Rule wrote:

Ha! Know what you mean! I think that is one reason I'm researching to death the 20mm lens.

24->20 going to give you that much improvement?

I also like being able to adjust the composition with a zoom.

pendennis

I use the 16-35 f/4 as my "go to" all purpose wide-to moderate wide lens. I also own the 24mm and 20mm f/2.8 primes, when I want to lighten the load. An older Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro is also a tool, when I'm not overly concerned about distortion.

The 16-35 gives a lot of room when you're in tighter quarters, or you just want to experiment with focal lengths without changing lenses. It's a real money saver, and with digital, you can always advance the ISO setting without getting a lot of noise.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

I have a 10-20 that is small but gets wide when my GOTO 18-140 is not wide enough.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Longshadow wrote:

24->20 going to give you that much improvement?

I also like being able to adjust the composition with a zoom.

The wider focal lengths have much more impact millimeter by millimeter vs the longer focal lengths. So yes, 20 vs 24 is a big deal. Consider all the lenses at 20, 24, 28 before you start making larger jumps to 35 and upward.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I am partial to an over twenty years old Tokina 14mm that can be used as a macro lens.

My feet are my zoom.

The real question is how much distortion are you willing to put up with.