A good wide angle zoom lens in Nikon F mount line up

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

C

chinmay_agnihotri

New member
Member's gallery
Hey everyone,

Greetings from India. Hope you all are safe and healthy during these troubling times.

First of all, thank you Steve for the comprehensive blog post and the review on the Nikon D6! I am going to get one soon.
Currently, I use a D750, with a 600 mm FL , 200-500 and a 70-200 which covers most of my photography needs.

However, there's one aspect I am interested in exploring further: wide angle wildlife photography. Sure, the opportunities to get good wide-angle shots are limited when compared to the telephotos, but I am liking the perspective that they bring to the frame, especially in habitat shots.

Now across the Nikon lineup, I found that the options are a bit limited when it comes to wide angle zoom lenses: 14-24, and 16-35 f/4. There's the 17-35, but it is a very old D series lens, and so I am reluctant to get it as it won't be future proof when I make the transition to mirrorless. Then there's the 18-35, but it has a variable aperture, and I'm not sure about its image quality at the higher focal lengths. I am looking for one to shoot big mammals like elephants, rhinos, tigers, and some tall birds in habitat. I prefer a zoom lens because of the versatility, else I would've bought the 20 mm f/1.8 by now.

The 14-24 is a bulky lens with a big bulbous front element, and the 16-35 is limited to f/4. Not that it is much of a problem when it comes to wildlife.

So I'd like to know which wide angle lens do you use, especially if you do wildlife photography? Do you like the output, with respect to distortion/corner sharpness aspects? Do you have any specific recommendations/choices? Do let me know. Thanks!

Regards,

Chinmay.
 
Member's gallery
I have got the Tamron 15-30 mm in my sites G2 version. I have several G2 Tamron lens and love them all.
chinmay_agnihotri said:
Hey everyone,

Greetings from India. Hope you all are safe and healthy during these troubling times.

First of all, thank you Steve for the comprehensive blog post and the review on the Nikon D6! I am going to get one soon.
Currently, I use a D750, with a 600 mm FL , 200-500 and a 70-200 which covers most of my photography needs.

However, there's one aspect I am interested in exploring further: wide angle wildlife photography. Sure, the opportunities to get good wide-angle shots are limited when compared to the telephotos, but I am liking the perspective that they bring to the frame, especially in habitat shots.

Now across the Nikon lineup, I found that the options are a bit limited when it comes to wide angle zoom lenses: 14-24, and 16-35 f/4. There's the 17-35, but it is a very old D series lens, and so I am reluctant to get it as it won't be future proof when I make the transition to mirrorless. Then there's the 18-35, but it has a variable aperture, and I'm not sure about its image quality at the higher focal lengths. I am looking for one to shoot big mammals like elephants, rhinos, tigers, and some tall birds in habitat. I prefer a zoom lens because of the versatility, else I would've bought the 20 mm f/1.8 by now.

The 14-24 is a bulky lens with a big bulbous front element, and the 16-35 is limited to f/4. Not that it is much of a problem when it comes to wildlife.

So I'd like to know which wide angle lens do you use, especially if you do wildlife photography? Do you like the output, with respect to distortion/corner sharpness aspects? Do you have any specific recommendations/choices? Do let me know. Thanks!

Regards,

Chinmay.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I use both the 14-24 and the 16-35. The 14-24 is one of the best lenses I have ever owned but it is bulky and filters add to that. (See Steve's review)
I use the 14-24 for all dedicated landscape shoots. The 16-35 does everything and it is always in my bag for safaris and other wildlife. It is a good deal easier when I am carrying a range of kit. For wildlife, favouring the centre of the image, the quality of the 16-35 is difficult to split from the 14-24.
The images I posted yesterday "Canadian Rockies" were both taken with a 16-35.
 
Member's gallery
Another vote for the 14-24. People worry about the bulbous front element, but in all the years I've owned the lens, I have yet to scratch the thing - and my 14-24 is heavily used. However, my main reason for posting it to mention that next week it looks like Nikon is going to announce a new 14-24 for the Z series. It's smaller than the current one, has a flat front element, and even takes filters (112mm filters, but it still makes filters).
 
Member's gallery
The nikkor 16-35/4 is a bargain, used. I don't shoot wide often enough to buy the 14-24. I have a 14mm Rokinon lens that I never use and should sell. The 16-35 is a pretty good walk around lens that works great for street and landscape and takes filters. I suppose the 14-24 would be better for indoor architecture stuff, but you didn't mention that.
 
Member's gallery
You know, I had another thought - not sure why it didn't occur to me before. If you're using mirrorless, the 14-30 is a really great lens. It's less expensive and much smaller than the 14-24s of the world, and I'v been very impressed with its sharpness.
 
Member's gallery
I am on a budget and use very successfully the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and a beautiful AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR as well as the fabulous Nikon 70-200mm VR. The AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR is a steal and if you are careful it produces so brilliant results.
 
Member's gallery
SNEDDERS6666 said:
I am on a budget and use very successfully the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and a beautiful AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR as well as the fabulous Nikon 70-200mm VR. The AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR is a steal and if you are careful it produces so brilliant results.
Click to expand...
I forgot about that one too! Great little lens.
 
Member's gallery
kenafein said:
The nikkor 16-35/4 is a bargain, used. I don't shoot wide often enough to buy the 14-24. I have a 14mm Rokinon lens that I never use and should sell. The 16-35 is a pretty good walk around lens that works great for street and landscape and takes filters. I suppose the 14-24 would be better for indoor architecture stuff, but you didn't mention that.
Click to expand...


The final choice for me will most likely be between the 16-35 and the 18-35. Right now, most of the budget I have is allocated for the D6, so I am trying to minimize spending on the wide angle lens, because I know I will not be using it much. As per a few online reviews, the quality of those 2 is comparable. So I'll try both and see.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Another vote for the 14-24. People worry about the bulbous front element, but in all the years I've owned the lens, I have yet to scratch the thing - and my 14-24 is heavily used. However, my main reason for posting it to mention that next week it looks like Nikon is going to announce a new 14-24 for the Z series. It's smaller than the current one, has a flat front element, and even takes filters (112mm filters, but it still makes filters).
Click to expand...
The 14-24 is indeed a great lens. Built like a tank, and phenomenal image quality. But my problem is for the money I'll put into the lens, I'll not be using it that much. I would've bought it if I had any plans for Africa next year. Indian jungles, not so much. Plus, the weight acts as a disadvantage for me if I am not going to use it often.
 
Member's gallery
SNEDDERS6666 said:
I am on a budget and use very successfully the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and a beautiful AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR as well as the fabulous Nikon 70-200mm VR. The AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR is a steal and if you are careful it produces so brilliant results.
Click to expand...


I had considered the 24-85, but I needed a lower focal length. I have heard that the DX 10-20 mm is a great lens, but I don't own a DX camera.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
You know, I had another thought - not sure why it didn't occur to me before. If you're using mirrorless, the 14-30 is a really great lens. It's less expensive and much smaller than the 14-24s of the world, and I'v been very impressed with its sharpness.
Click to expand...

By upgrading to mirrorless, I meant in the future when Nikon brings up a D6-like body in mirrorless, that's when I'll upgrade. I am not using any mirrorless bodies as of now.
 
Member's gallery
GG1 said:
I have got the Tamron 15-30 mm in my sites G2 version. I have several G2 Tamron lens and love them all.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I haven't tried out any third party lenses from Tamron/Sigma yet. They seem to have some good wide angle options. Though I prefer sticking to the in-house options if my needs are satisfied.
 
Member's gallery
depends a lot on the distance your shooting at as to how wide you need to go As for third party lenses I just purchased the Tamron 24-70mm G2 latest version . What a fantastic lens for my Nikon D810. The image stablisation is that good you don't need a tripod even for panning video shots. so if looking for a medium range lens ,and 24mm is quite wide ,this is the lens I highly recommend,and I always have been a dedicated Nikon only user until now
 
Member's gallery
I have two Zeiss UW primes, which are excellent optics but on the heavy side. So I tend to carry the 18-35 G, which gives excellent results on the D850, and also a Z7. It is only 385g, and it takes 100 grad filters via the 77mm filter mount. You can find a decent copy Used. Make sure it's the current G version (the older D model is nowhere as good).
The other important benefit of a Uwide Zoom is the flexibility to frame the scene more easily, especially from a fixed position (eg if the camera rig is set up remotely in a choice site). I recall Steve has underscored this factor somewhere, but cannot recall where (!)
EDIT: the 14-30 f4S Nikkor is indeed excellent but restricted to Zed cameras only (unfortunately)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
A wide angle for wildlife??? Hmmmm...that takes some thought. I use my 24-85 or the 18-140 on the rare occasion (like, if that's what I have on my camera, and an opportunity presents itself.) Otherwise, I have a lens on that is more appropriate to the subject. A wide angle lends itself more to the beautiful meadow with little dark dots.
"What are the dots?" Somebody will ask. "Oh, those are the Buffalo!":rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top