Help torn between 16-35mm, 18-35mm and 20mm f1.8g Or even a Nikon 24-70

kennychick

Hi guys, having just sold my 35mm f2 and 20mm f2.8. I'm now on a look out for a wide angle lens. I have been getting a bit crazy as there a many reviews that swings me back and forth into which one I should get.

If any of you's have tried either one please let me know.
I'm looking into landscapes and future astro photography and will be stacking filters.

heartyfisher

Hi welcome to NR forum ..

I guess its FX you are after and not DX ?

I probably wouldn’t have sold those lenses :-) buying lenses is a very personal thing. Tell us why you sold those lenses and what you are looking for in the new lense .. all those lenses can mostly do what you want ...

sevencrossing

I'm looking into landscapes and future astro photography and will be stacking filters.

You do not tell us what other lenses you have. If you shoot Fx, and want a prime; I would seriously consider the new 20mm f1.8 this should be excellent for for landscapes and astro. This lens is top of my wish list

My current favorite FX landscape lens is the 16 -35 f4 vr on a D800 but being a zoom it is very slightly soft at the edges, this only shows up on urban landscapes, it not so noticeable on rural scenes

Beware of vignetting, on any wide angle lens, if you use more than one filter

Provided you avoid the 28mm F2.8 AF-D I don't think Nikon currently make any bad wide angle lenses

Pistnbroke

Go for the widest or there is no point in having it. A short zoom is usefull for framing but 24mm is not wide these days

kennychick

Hi sorry,
D750
50mm 1.8g
85mm 1.8g
105mm macro

I was happy with the 20mm 2.8d but since the release of the 1.8g version I have been thinking about it as I know it will be better. The more I research into the lenses the more confused I get so this is why I want someone with those lenses tell me something about it.

Having used the 35mm f1.8g DX version I just think the 35mm f2d wasn't as good wide open and may purchase the AFS version or the Sigma art later down the track.

Many thanks

Sports

As a landscape photographer, you seem to have a big hole after selling your two old lenses.
And don't end up with 24mm; it's not wide enough for you, I'm sure.
You should expect reviews of the new Tamron 15-30 pretty soon ... to complicate your decision :-)

kenadams

Hmm, but do you really shoot landscape or architecture wide open?

I'm sure the 20 1.8 is an awesome lens, I'm thinking about getting it myself. However, 900 bucks is not a small amount of money. Just be sure to get it for the right reasons. Last year I did a last minute purchase on a wide angle prime for a trip to Mexico where I knew I'd need a wide lens and didn't want to haul my 17-35 over there. I spent 60 bucks on a manual Tokina 24 2.8. Shot at f5.6 or f8 it's actually pretty decently sharp. Not by any means saying you should get that lens ( you shouldn't), just that I personally didn't buy it for wide open shots, so it was good enough for the job

I don't know jack**** about astrophotography. For that, the 20 1.8 looks superb, though..

kennychick

As a landscape photographer, you seem to have a big hole after selling your two old lenses.
And don't end up with 24mm; it's not wide enough for you, I'm sure.
You should expect reviews of the new Tamron 15-30 pretty soon ... to complicate your decision :-)

Yeah the Tamron 15-30 does look nice but I don't think it can attach filters so thats out of the list.
If the tokina 16-28 can attach ring filters I would of purchased that.

kennychick

Hmm, but do you really shoot landscape or architecture wide open?

I'm sure the 20 1.8 is an awesome lens, I'm thinking about getting it myself. However, 900 bucks is not a small amount of money. Just be sure to get it for the right reasons. Last year I did a last minute purchase on a wide angle prime for a trip to Mexico where I knew I'd need a wide lens and didn't want to haul my 17-35 over there. I spent 60 bucks on a manual Tokina 24 2.8. Shot at f5.6 or f8 it's actually pretty decently sharp. Not by any means saying you should get that lens ( you shouldn't), just that I personally didn't buy it for wide open shots, so it was good enough for the job

I don't know jack**** about astrophotography. For that, the 20 1.8 looks superb, though..

The price for the 20mm 1.8 is $1300 and the 16-35 is $1500 in NZ. The lens sure is pricey, reason why I'm considering the 20mm 1.8 is that the fast lens may help with astro landscape photography also it produces nice sunstars which I don't know if the 16-35, 18-35g could produce.

sevencrossing

50mm 1.8g
85mm 1.8g
105mm macro

Assuming the above are all Nikon and you are happy with them

The Nikon 20mm f1.8 will give you a superb set of Nikon primes, capable
of covering just about everything

If you happy with Nikon glass, why even consider third party stuff with, unknown future compatibility issues

spraynpray

OK, Astro: I gather you mean night sky photography? What was your old 20/2.8 like for coma? The new20/1.8 is supposedly excellent for coma correction. Most ordinary lenses I've tried are not great so for me that is an important point but I suppose it depends on how serious you are about just one genre.

mikep

24 1.4 is my first choice wide nikon lens

kenadams

I take it nobody takes pictures of skies at night if there *aren't* any stars (because of fog, clouds, smog or whatever) because that would be a pretty dark and boring photo, so it's safe to assume that what he meant to say by astrophotography was: astrophotography.

WestEndFoto

Frankly, I don’t think that a 20mm lens is the optimum lens for landscape photography.

I have the:

14-24 2.8
20 2.8 Ai-s
28 2.8Ai-s
50 1.2Ai-s (this is sharper than the 1.4G from f/2.0 to about f/5.6)
50 1.4G
85 1.4G
135 DC2.0
200 4.0 Micro

When I go on landscape trips, I bring the three Ai-s lenses, the 85 and 200. Landscapes are best shot at f/5.6 – f/11, and the Ai-s lenses are just as good as modern day lenses at that aperture, especially the 28. The 85 is a good landscape lens and doubles as a portrait. The 200 is a good landscape lens and doubles as a macro. The only thing that I am missing is an astro. The modern 1.8s would be best for that as they are sharp wide open with little coma.

If I rank which lenses I use most for landscape, I would say:

1.
28 (in my opinion and for my use, this is the ideal focal length and the Ai-s is a classic lens that is still competitive at wider apertures)
2.
50
3.
A draw between the 20, 85 and 200.

Remember that if you are really trying to take a great landscape shot, it is rare that you will want the entire landscape in your shot. Yes, you can crop, but the more you crop the more resolution you are sacrificing in your final image.

If you just want to take “been there shots”, then the 20 1.8 is probably a good choice.

sevencrossing

Remember that if you are really trying to take a great landscape shot, it is rare that you will want the entire landscape in your shot.

Very true . which is probably why I tend to use zooms



Sunrise, Glastonbury Tor;
80-400mm AF-S VR G ED N NIKKOR @92mm D800 1/90 f 8 ISO 100
( one of the rare occasions, I used a tripod, yes i remembered to switched the vr off)

spraynpray

I take it nobody takes pictures of skies at night if there *aren't* any stars (because of fog, clouds, smog or whatever) because that would be a pretty dark and boring photo, so it's safe to assume that what he meant to say by astrophotography was: astrophotography.

What is your point exactly? Night sky is usually pictures of stars but with landscapes or whatever in the foreground - like this:



Astro usually includes a telescope and is altogether more specialised. People asking about astrophotography would/should be asking questions on an astrophotography forum.

If a lens has poor coma correction, all the stars look like tadpoles with their tails pointing towards the centre of the image.

proudgeek

+1. Yes you want the sky to be the primary focus, but you want other elements in there, otherwise it just looks like a bunch of white spots (trust me, I've taken my share of those).

Hammie

This was hand-held so not too many stars showed up.

I might try to remove the power lines in Lightroom.



D750 w/ Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

1/50 sec, f/1.8, 50mm, ISO 12,800

kennychick

Maybe I should just spend a bit more and go for the 24-70mm 2.8

proudgeek

I do astrophotography with the 17-35 and am pleased, although I'd be curious to shoot the 20mm f/1.8, particularly for non-stacked images.

PB_PM

Maybe I should just spend a bit more and go for the 24-70mm 2.8

You could, just keep in mind that 24mm is one of the weak spots on the 24-70mm F2.8G. Not that it isn't sharp wide open, because it is. I've shot astrophotography with it in fact, just keep in mind that it vignettes heavily at F2.8 and there is a lot of distortion. I think based on how you've gone with primes so far, the best route would be another prime, or two (20mm and 35mm sounds perfect).

I tried astrophotography with the 16-35mm F4G VR (which I have) and to be honest it's maximum aperture is too slow. For several reasons, first dark viewfinder, and also longer than desirable shutter speeds, or too much noise at high ISO.

kennychick

I do astrophotography with the 17-35 and am pleased, although I'd be curious to shoot the 20mm f/1.8, particularly for non-stacked images.

Im curious about the 20mm 1.8g too man hopefully someone here who has it can say something about it.
17-35 would seem good but the price is not so good, it cost 1.9k for it in nz.

kennychick

Maybe I should just spend a bit more and go for the 24-70mm 2.8

You could, just keep in mind that 24mm is one of the weak spots on the 24-70mm F2.8G. Not that it isn't sharp wide open, because it is. I've shot astrophotography with it in fact, just keep in mind that it vignettes heavily at F2.8 and there is a lot of distortion. I think based on how you've gone with primes so far, the best route would be another prime, or two (20mm and 35mm sounds perfect).

I tried astrophotography with the 16-35mm F4G VR (which I have) and to be honest it's maximum aperture is too slow. For several reasons, first dark viewfinder, and also longer than desirable shutter speeds, or too much noise at high ISO.

Many thanks for the info.

I have been using primes for a long time and it's started to annoy me having to change them for different shoots. Kind of want to see how it feels with a zoom lens again.
is the vignettes and distortion easily fixable with lightroom though.

How does the 16-35 perform in landscape wise? like the sweet spot for them lol.

PB_PM

For landscapes the 16-35mm is great, but like any super wide lens you do need to know when to use it. I tend to use the 16-28mm range the most. The 35mm end is a like weak, compared to the 24-70mm F2.8. The sweat spot? 18-24mm has the least distortion and the greatest sharpness. For most static subjects I follow the old, F8 and forget it rule and get good results. Wide open it's a little on the soft side, so I avoid F4 for anything where I care about corner sharpness.

Here are some examples:

Large Version @16mm F4


Large Version @16mm F10, hand held ISO100, 1/25s with VR.


Large Version @35mm F8

TomB

How about the Rokinon 14mm 2.8?

WestEndFoto

This is pretty wide for a landscape. Personally I really love the focal length when it is useful, but I don't find it useful that often.