jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Check out the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. Equivalent Nikon 14-24mm performance (according to several reviews) at half the price.

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

try the joe mcnalley grip - "Da Grip..."

http://photocreative365.com/the-steady-grip-holding-your-camera-in-low-light&h=431&w=570&tbnid=wNmTcz8XDLNhDM:&docid=4jFC2-PqMAtyCM&ei=GGEkVtvsKIijgwTnt6fgCg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygCMAJqFQoTCNvYytTJzcgCFYjRgAod59sJrA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://photocreative365.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Steady-grip-3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://photocreative365.com/the-steady-grip-holding-your-camera-in-low-light&h=431&w=570&tbnid=wNmTcz8XDLNhDM:&docid=4jFC2-PqMAtyCM&ei=GGEkVtvsKIijgwTnt6fgCg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygCMAJqFQoTCNvYytTJzcgCFYjRgAod59sJrA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://photocreative365.com/the-steady-grip-holding-your-camera-in-low-light&h=431&w=570&tbnid=wNmTcz8XDLNhDM:&docid=4jFC2-PqMAtyCM&ei=GGEkVtvsKIijgwTnt6fgCg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygCMAJqFQoTCNvYytTJzcgCFYjRgAod59sJrA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://photocreative365.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Steady-grip-3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://photocreative365.com/the-steady-grip-holding-your-camera-in-low-light&h=431&w=570&tbnid=wNmTcz8XDLNhDM:&docid=4jFC2-PqMAtyCM&ei=GGEkVtvsKIijgwTnt6fgCg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygCMAJqFQoTCNvYytTJzcgCFYjRgAod59sJrA

try the above or just google...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The Sigma 8-16 mm is a DX format lens equivalent to 12-24 mm on a full frame camera. On a D810 the it produces a 16 MP image, the same as you would get with a D7000.

With a D7100/7200 you would get 24 MP and the same field of view for a lot less than you invested in a D810.

If you are happy with the field of view of an 8-16 mm DX lens, a 12-24 FX lens would yield the full 36 MP of your D810 and would probably be a better lens - might cost a little more.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Folks, how hard it is to pay a little attention to the original poster's question?



D750 is an FX camera... Sigma 8-16mm is a DX lens, Nikon 12-24 is DX, too. Yes, you can use them with the camera in DX mode. However, the D750 is not a D810. The 24MP FX D750 becomes a 10MP camera in DX mode.

The Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, on the other hand, is an FX lens and top quality, though relatively large and heavy. But, after spending close to $2000, you won't be able to easily use filters on it due to it's strongly convex front element. Yes, there are filter adapters and oversize filters available... but they are pricey, big and cannot be easily shaded with a lens hood.

You can choose among a bunch of 16-35s and 17-35s, which are not 14mm wide, but are still ultrawide. There are also 20mm, 18mm, 17mm and 14mm primes, if you prefer. Sigma and Tamron offer them. There are a number of possible Nikkors, too. And Tokina has some excellent choices (some Nikkors might be relabeled Tokina... I suspect there's some outsourcing going on).

Here's something to consider. There's an obsession with f2.8 and even f1.8 and f1.4 ultrawides... That most people actually don't need and are unlikely to use, but are considerably more expensive, larger and heavier, sometimes cannot be fitted with filters at all or require oversize filters... and often don't deliver as good image quality as slower (i.e., f4), but still premium quality ultrawides.

Most of the time when shooting with an ultrawide, we're stopping down in search of more depth of field. Ultrawides simply can't render strongly blurred away backgrounds, the way normal and telephotos can. So f1.4 and f1.8 are kind of silly for most peoples' uses.... Even f2.8 is highly questionable. For most peoples' wide angle uses, f4 is plenty fast... and often will give better corner-to-corner image quality, while being more compact and lighter weight... and lower priced.

Variable apertures aren't necessarily a bad thing, either. Zooms with variable apertures can be more compact and might give excellent image quality, thanks in part to this type of design... which also can help reduce cost. But, non-variable apertures are also often associated with more premium quality zooms.

Historically, primes were preferable over zooms for best possible image quality. But today's zooms are pretty amazing and can give a lot of versatility in a single lens. And there is software that can help correct things like barrel or pincushion or even more complex distortions (such as "moustache" ). Lens profiles built into Lightroom... or even more advanced corrective software such as DXO might help make zooms even more viable alternatives to primes.

Now, I shoot with Canon and the wide angles I use or am I'm most likely to buy in the future are not usable on a Nikon... And I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the options for your camera. But I do know there are many possibilities, both zooms and primes.

One Nikkor zoom that got my attention is the AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR... it's very highly regarded, considered even sharper than the 14-24mm. It's also smaller, lighter and cheaper. But I believe don't believe the 16-35m Nikkor is as "pro-quality" built as the 14-24mm.

I'd also look into the Tokina AT-X 17-35mm f4 FX. Seems a very good lens, too. Tokina also offers a 16-28/2.8, but it has a convex front element (no filters).

Nikon also offers a more compact, lower priced 18-35mm f3.5-4.5. I think they are still making 17-35/2.8, too... which is an older optical design, but pro quality build.

The widest of the ultrawide is the Sigma 12-24mm. But, it has heavy distortion and a convex front lens element (no filters).

The Tamron 15-35/2.8 is another possibility, but also has a convex front element (no filters).

Personally, on my full frame Canon I use 20mm, 24mm and 28mm primes. I have used a 17-35/2.8 in the past and might get a 16-35/4 in the future.

As to some means of working with that 300/2.8 more comfortably... I recommend either a monopod or a tripod (actually, I use both). A monopod leaves you more mobile, while a tripod gives better stability and might be the better choice for longer shooting sessions. With a tripod, if you are wanting to shoot moving subjects, a gimbal adapter can be useful with a large lens like a 300/2.8(example: Wimberley Sidekick SK-100, which is used with a standard, heavy duty ballhead). There also are full size gimbal mounts that would work well with the 300/2.8, but because they completely replace any other type of head, make the tripod sort of "long lens only" dedicated.

A monopod is much simpler, of course... Faster set up and can make for a nice "walking stick" too, when there are no camera and lens mounted on it. You probably won't need it with the 300/2.8, because that lens has a built-in tripod mounting ring, but for use with shorter lenses you may want a simple head on a monopod, too.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Da Grip: Holding a Camera Steady
http://www.graphics.com/article-old/da-grip-holding-camera-steady

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Although I don't agree 1000%, amfoto1's analysis is complete and factual and presents most of the choices you have at this time. My personal bias is to the 14-24/2.8 which is both fast when needed and allows a lot of the light through to be better able to see the image when used at night. As I tend to do most of my shooting wide open, I do lean towards the faster lenses. That being said, I really love my new 300/4 PF and use it much much more than I do my 300/2.8 as it's easily handholdable for long periods of time, fast enough for most situations, very very light, small and has fantastic VR. I have also recently purchased a Sigma 24-105/4 OS for similar reasons, but I have little experience with it at this time. I purchased the Sigma specifically for a carry around as well as its light weight and OS and to give me a bit more reach than the 24-70 when I only had one lens.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I have used a Stedi-Stock I bought from B&H for several years. It served me well on my Sigma 150-500 zoom on safari. It is considerable less costly than other designs and works well.