D800 wide angle len options?
- Thread starter JacePhoto
- Start date
that one is a terrible lens. even the old school 17-35 zoom was better.
Kit
Senior Member
If you only use 24mm, then fork out a bit more for the 24mm f/1.4. Smaller, takes regular filters and probably sharper.
Why not try it first? I'm pretty sure the 17-35 performs optimally on a FX from f/4 to f/16. Diffraction occurs at f/18 slight to more along f/20-22. Image does significantly becomes softer even on LCD.
Do note that 1 filter is max the 17-35 can accept at one time, attempting to stack a 2nd filter will have bare minimum vignetting at all four corners.
Of course, these are findings on a D4. I believe though the D800 would behave the same.
Ansel
Senior Member
Assuming the IQ quality is the same for these two lenses and the prices are similar, the only reasons for not buying the 14-24/2.8 are the size of the lens and the inability to accept a filter.
Going by these images I can see and download to examine, the imaging quality of this lens is very very hard to beat, even with a prime. Check out the images of the library interior taken with the 14-24 on the D800:
Nikon | Imaging Products | Sample Images - Nikon D800/D800E
I know many people like to bash the old Nikkor 20/2.8 AFD, I still feel this lens, although not brilliant by today's standard, still performs fairly well, given that it's a 30-year-old lens design, in a very compact package. I'm very sure many award-winning Nat Geo photographs have been made with this lens during the 80s and 90s. Again, YMMV.
the 17-35 in my experience, is superior to the 20-35. but it has its issues outside the central part of the frame, this lens was designed primarily back in 2000 for the D1, D1H, D1X cameras with the DX sensor - yes even though it was full frame, it was designed to restore the "wide end" for the photojournalism crowd during that period of time, it performed well for a long time but shows its age and optical flaws in this present decade.
Nay, f/7.1 to f/8.0 is the diffraction limit for the D800/E sensor. There is a transitional difference between f/8 to f/11.
ok lah, i feel really bad for hogging this thread. but to be really honest, when i saw the sample for the 14-24 and the D800, i was not that impressed. but at that time i was shooting the H4D-50 with the 28/4 HC lens, and the output from that... lens and camera combined, is vastly superior to the D800/E plus 14-24.
Granted its like almost 19.5mm on the Hasselblad, and doesn't get to the full 14mm... but for such static subjects, can easily shoot two and stitch both together and yield a 80+ MP image.
In my dry cab, I do have the 20/2.8 and the 35/2 which I pair with my F6 for classic film. But it cannot keep up with the demands of the present sensor. A lot of stuff we know or learned in the film time has to be put aside, especially with regards to diffraction on digital. Its not a f/16 and problem solved world anymore.
As mentioned, I only tested on the D4
I don't have a D800/E to test/play with.Optically, I'm pretty pleased with the 17-35 (personally) at max of 17mm across f/2.8~f/16. On DX, the sweetest spot I love is f/4. YMMV definitely.
The 24-70s, 70-200VRII, 300~600mms with the VR and Nano coating were redesigned to suit the FX cameras on the light falloffs/softness towards the outer area of the sensors as well as vignetting.
However, much surprised, there isn't a 17-35 f/2.8 MKII yet.
Last edited:
Am thinking that because of the newness in this D800 technology, there is no ultra wide angle ( less than 20 mm) catered to it yet. To be fair, there isn't an equivalent (less than 20 mm) for digital medium format too.
On the other hand, the center spot for D800 for >50 mm is somewhat close to a medium format.
So I guess we have to be satisfied w 20 mm wide angle as the minimum angle for now.
On the other hand, the center spot for D800 for >50 mm is somewhat close to a medium format.
So I guess we have to be satisfied w 20 mm wide angle as the minimum angle for now.
Similar threads
