Monte's post
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Level 2

I would like to start with ultrawide photography

Which lens you would recommend for Nikon fx camera?

13 comments
Level 10

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

Level 6

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

Hi @Monte,

 

I've seen something about these lenses:

- Rokinon 8mm Ultra Wide Angle f/3.5

- Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG


You can do a Google search by Review and a search on Flickr for the models of each lens and see how the photos are.
I search this way when I am interested in a lens.

Good luck !   🙂

Level 5

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

  Following are the best results for this search , find something from them Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ($1,897)

 

Nikon 14-24mm lens
 

Category: Wide angle
Weight: 34.2 oz.
What we like: Nikon's top wide-angle zoom.
What we don’t: Heavy and expensive.

 

For professionals and discerning enthusiasts, the 14-24mm f/2.8 is Nikon’s top wide-angle zoom and captures exceptionally sharp images throughout its range. In addition, autofocus is fast and accurate and the f/2.8 maximum aperture is impressive for a lens of this type. What are the shortcomings of the Nikon 14-24mm? It’s heavy at over 34 ounces and costs nearly $2,000. You also can expect distortion at the wide end but this can be corrected in-camera on new Nikon DSLRs like the D810 and D750. For serious wide-angle photographers, and particular those who shoot ultra-wide, the Nikon 14-24mm is an excellent choice. Those looking to save should consider the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 or Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 below.
See the Nikon 14-24mm f2/.8

 

 Nikon 16-35mm f/4 ($997)

 

Nikon 16-35mm FX lens
 

Category: Wide angle
Weight: 24 oz.
What we like: Just over half the price of the 14-24mm above.
What we don’t: Low light performance and heavy distortion at the wide end.

 

The Nikon 16-35mm f/4 is another great wide-angle zoom for FX, giving you professional-grade image quality without breaking the bank. Its biggest competition is the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 above, which is superior optically but not necessarily as good of a buy. First, the 16-35mm f/4 is much cheaper at just over $1,000. Second, it covers more focal lengths and has a more useful zoom range. Third, it’s over 8 ounces lighter. The most notable shortcoming of the 16-35mm is the maximum aperture of f/4, which is serviceable but not optimal in low light (the lens does have vibration reduction). It also has noticeable distortion at the wide end. For an even cheaper wide-angle zoom for FX, the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 doesn’t have vibration reduction but costs even less and weighs only 13.6 ounces.

- See more at: http://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-nikon-fx-lenses#sthash.G53AYfmO.dpuf

Level 10

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography


@Monte wrote:

Which lens you would recommend for Nikon fx camera?


I think it is better to ask yourself what is your subject going to be?

Is it architecture / street life where straight lines, alignment facial details are important? or Landscape or flower?

Once you figure out your subject matter, the lens selection narrows down considerably.

Then you have to think what is your budget also what how often do you use it?

 

Where I live there I am blessed with places like LensRental where I can rent a lens for days or trips. I highly recommend you try out lens before you buy.

 

Personally the lens I buy and keep, I like to have a common filter size i.e. 77mm so I can swap filters between lens. Then after a few years when it is time for servicing I like to get Nikon to add a few modifications.

Level 5

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

@LucioV Thank you for your suggestion, but what I shall  do with fish eye?


@LucioV wrote:

Hi @Monte for Nikon Ultrawide photography you should wait for this lens to enter the market:

pic_170531_02_01

 

 

http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/0531_lens_01.htm


 

Level 5

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

Is it better to use prime 14mm or 14-24?


@drahmad1989 wrote:

  Following are the best results for this search , find something from them Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ($1,897)

 

Nikon 14-24mm lens
 

Category: Wide angle
Weight: 34.2 oz.
What we like: Nikon's top wide-angle zoom.
What we don’t: Heavy and expensive.

 

For professionals and discerning enthusiasts, the 14-24mm f/2.8 is Nikon’s top wide-angle zoom and captures exceptionally sharp images throughout its range. In addition, autofocus is fast and accurate and the f/2.8 maximum aperture is impressive for a lens of this type. What are the shortcomings of the Nikon 14-24mm? It’s heavy at over 34 ounces and costs nearly $2,000. You also can expect distortion at the wide end but this can be corrected in-camera on new Nikon DSLRs like the D810 and D750. For serious wide-angle photographers, and particular those who shoot ultra-wide, the Nikon 14-24mm is an excellent choice. Those looking to save should consider the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 or Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 below.
See the Nikon 14-24mm f2/.8

 

 Nikon 16-35mm f/4 ($997)

 

Nikon 16-35mm FX lens
 

Category: Wide angle
Weight: 24 oz.
What we like: Just over half the price of the 14-24mm above.
What we don’t: Low light performance and heavy distortion at the wide end.

 

The Nikon 16-35mm f/4 is another great wide-angle zoom for FX, giving you professional-grade image quality without breaking the bank. Its biggest competition is the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 above, which is superior optically but not necessarily as good of a buy. First, the 16-35mm f/4 is much cheaper at just over $1,000. Second, it covers more focal lengths and has a more useful zoom range. Third, it’s over 8 ounces lighter. The most notable shortcoming of the 16-35mm is the maximum aperture of f/4, which is serviceable but not optimal in low light (the lens does have vibration reduction). It also has noticeable distortion at the wide end. For an even cheaper wide-angle zoom for FX, the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 doesn’t have vibration reduction but costs even less and weighs only 13.6 ounces.

- See more at: http://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-nikon-fx-lenses#sthash.G53AYfmO.dpuf


 

Level 10

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

@VinkoV , @Monte asked for ultrawide photography... so... this is a fisheye that turns to 15 mm 😉 And promise to be a great lens (i saw some dng).

Level 5

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography

Nikkor 8-15mm F/3.5-4.5 ED is just an answer from Nikon to Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM. Both are not rectlinear lens. Both has orthographic projection. Both are not perfect UWA photography

Level 10

Re: I would like to start with ultrawide photography


@VinkoV wrote:

Nikkor 8-15mm F/3.5-4.5 ED is just an answer from Nikon to Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM. Both are not rectlinear lens. Both has orthographic projection. Both are not perfect UWA photography


Sure, you are correct.