wide angle lenses, few questions...

[Seb]

I am seeking for a wide angle lense for my D70.

My first thought was to go for a prime such the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 ED (I thought about a prime to get the very best optical quality and for the speed).

However I have heard about things such the front element being always exposed and the fact that it only tooks gel filters on the rear element!?!?? I am not quite sure what gel filters are at the first place...

Another option could be the rather new Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 DX ED zoom. It's slower but I can go wider and it takes conventional filters... However, I remember that Sebastian once pointed out the fact that DX lenses might not be a good bet as it is unsure that Nikon will sitck with the DX format sensor (they might eventually release full frame sensors).

Moreover, how can these two compare in terms of sharpness, perspective (do they distort a lot?), flare control etc,,,,

I have looked at the reviews but most people seems to be happy with what the have, it doesn't tell me much somehow.

best regards

Seb

[Franglais]

I am seeking for a wide angle lense for my D70.

My first thought was to go for a prime such the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 ED (I thought about a prime to get the very best optical quality and for the speed).

However I have heard about things such the front element being always exposed and the fact that it only tooks gel filters on the rear element!?!?? I am not quite sure what gel filters are at the first place...

Another option could be the rather new Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 DX ED zoom. It's slower but I can go wider and it takes conventional filters... However, I remember that Sebastian once pointed out the fact that DX lenses might not be a good bet as it is unsure that Nikon will sitck with the DX format sensor (they might eventually release full frame sensors).

Moreover, how can these two compare in terms of sharpness, perspective (do they distort a lot?), flare control etc,,,,

I have looked at the reviews but most people seems to be happy with what the have, it doesn't tell me much somehow.

best regards

Seb

Nikon's product philosophy is to protect their clients investment. When they evolve their products they ensure there is a certain compatibility with older products, so you don't have to change everything at once.

I think that the DX format is here to stay. From what I've seen in the French press, Nikon engineers are pretty confident in their evolution path. I haven't heard anything about a 24x36 size sensor from Nikon. Kodak are already in this space with their lens mount. Canon have the 1Ds with a 24x36 sensor but as far as I can make out the number sold is relatively low.

I don't even have a digital SLR yet so perhaps I shouldn't be giving you advice, but in your place I would go for the 12-24mm. I looked at the 14mm and it seemed like a very expensive, vulnerable piece of glass (which covers 24x36, remember).

Charles

[another view]

The only thing I can tell you is that a friend had both lenses. He just sold the 14 because both were sharp and the 12-24 can use filters (77mm). It's a very sharp lens that I've shot with once too. It's been out for over a year now.

The 14mm is full frame on a 35mm camera but the 12-24 is not. It takes gel filters in the back, near the lens mount. It probably comes with a few different ones but you probably can't get any other types. It has a goofy lens cap that looks like it might be a hassle.

I thought about buying it from him myself because it works on both formats. I decided against it for either the 12-24 or the new 17-55 since 80-90% of what I shoot is digital. Since I'm not sure which I'm not doing anything for now, I'll stick with my 20-35 and shoot film if I need something wider. I've got too much stuff anyway...

I don't see Nikon going to a full frame sensor any time soon - or at least abandoning the smaller 1.5 sensor. There are a lot of advantages to the smaller sensor - this is just the main disadvantage. Anybody's guess what will happen though.

[Mig]

I've never used either of the Nikons, but here's what I know:

Nikon 14mm: I'm not sure what they meant by "the front element is always exposed," unless they were referring to the fact that you cannot put a "protective" filter over it, which is true. The front element bulges and the lens has a built-in petal shaped hood, but it comes with a slip-on lens cap, so I don't really see it as a problem, but then again I don't use filters for protection. Gel filters are thin pieces of material and in this case you would cut the filter to fit in the small square mount at the back of the lens. B&H sells quite a few.

Nikon 12-24: Yes, it's not compatible with the 35mm format. Other than that I've heard it's a great lens.

I don't know if you've considered other manufacturers, but I'm quite happy with Sigma's 12-24 f4.5-5.6. It's not as fast as the Nikon version, but it's a bit cheaper and it works on 35mm so you don't have to worry about the full-frame issue. It's quite cool to have a 12mm lens to use on my EOS 3 as well as having a 19mm equiv for the 10D. Penny has the Nikon mount of the Sigma and I believe she's happy with it as well. Here are some samples from the 10D. Like the Nikon 14mm, the Sigma has the bulbous front-end with a built-in petal hood and a rear gel filter holder.

[Sebastian]

Another option could be the rather new Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 DX ED zoom. It's slower but I can go wider and it takes conventional filters... However, I remember that Sebastian once pointed out the fact that DX lenses might not be a good bet as it is unsure that Nikon will sitck with the DX format sensor (they might eventually release full frame sensors).

Seb,

I think it's important that I explain my stance behind that statement. Basically, you are taking it out of context. Nikon trumpeted up their DX lenses and stood firm on the whole "there is no full-frame sensor in our future." I believed it. Then, after some internal shakeups, replacement of poeple in control in the company, someone came out in an interview and said that it's very likely that a full-frame sensor is in their future.

That does not change the fact that the DX lenses work great on DSLRs, it doesn't change the fact that some line of Nikons will continue to have DX sized sensors, and it doesn't make the investment any less worth it.

However, it shook my confidence in the company, and with the addition of all the other issues I had with Nikon, it was listed as one reason for switching. It wasn't because I believe that someday that 1000 dollar lens will be worthless, I don't think that at all. I just got sick of them playing games and moved to a system that already gives me the option of picking sensor size to suit my needs, instead of depending on reading between the lines to figure out if someday I might be able to do what Canon lets me do today.

With zooms, I would personally go with the Nikon 12-24 if you want wide, simply because of the constant aperture and the excellent optics. The Sigma is nice, but the reviews leave wide-open performance in the questionable area.

My number one choice would be the Nikon 14mm. The whole thing about the element being exposed, ANY element on any lens frankly, is a poor reason for avoiding a lens. UV filters are largely useless, and using that as an excuse to not use a lens is a ridiculous way to talk yourself out of an excellent lens, in build and optical quality. Rear gel filters are only used for color correction, if at all. A polarizer can not be used with this lens, but for the most part that doesn't matter one bit. A polarizer with wide angles is only used for controlling reflections, since using it to saturate a sky will create a very vignetted effect due to the wide angle of the lens and the narrow angle the filter will work at. This is true for both the 14mm and the 12-24, although near the 24mm end the zoom can successfully use a polarizer. Unless of course you like the vignette effect that die lenses create with polarizers, in which case the fron element of the 14mm WOULD be an issue. But I see no other reason beyond that why it should ever be a concern.

Another reason to go with a pirme is flare control. The zooms will always be more likely to flare due to all the elements. The difference will vary depending on coatings, location of lights, etc. But for all intents and purposes, if sharpness and flare control are paramount, primes are the way to go.

I shot with the 14mm Canon, and it is a dream lens. If you can afford it, go with the Nikon 14mm, I seriously doubt you would regret it. But to make sure, rent each one for a weekend and see what you personally think about each one. The cost of rental is always smaller than the potential hit you can take if you resell the lens after deciding it's not right for you.

Take care. BTW, I still get a kick out of starting and ending a post with "Seb."

Later.

[Seb]

Hello,

Well you guy's just came out with a whole lot of highly valuable informations. I am glad to have asked my questions here.

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to formulate detailled answers.
A special thanks to Sebastian for clarifying your position. I didn't meant to take your claims out of context.

best regards to all

Seb