NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Peter Connan on July 21, 2015, 06:33:15
-
I am looking for a fast ultra-wide angle lens (14-20mm) for use on Nikon D750.
My primary use for this lens will be astro-landscape and timelapse photography, possibly with a little bit of real estate photography thrown in. My only current wide-angle lens is an old Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AI-S manual lens.
Thus i am looking for a fast maximum aperture as first priority, then optical performance with sharpness wide open and lack of coma most important, but minimal distortion also somewhat important. I think CA, flare and bokeh are less important for these uses.
AF performance is not important at all since no current AF system can yet focus at -7EV. In fact I prefer manual-focus lenses as these typically have a longer focus ring travel, making manual focus easier.
Budget is around R13k ($1000US).
The contenders I know of are:
Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 (or it's video cousin, the T3.1).
Nikkor 20mm f1.8
Tokina 16-28mm f2.8
Tamron 15-30mm f2.8
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 (second-hand).
On the basis of the reviews I have managed to find, my preference is for the Tamron in first place and the Samyang second, followed by the Nikkor 14-24 in third (only because it is so expensive and I am an impatient bugger(the market for second-hand lenses in South Africa is quite slow)), Nikkor 20mm fourth and Tokina bringing up the rear.
Does anybody have any exerience with any of these lenses they would like to share, are there any lenses I have missed or any factors I am not considerng that may change the order?
Thank you
-
Hi Peter,
I'm a big fan the Samyang 14/2.8 AE and occasionally use it for astro landscapes:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=3.0 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=3.0)
Also had the 14-24 which is a beast, slightly better at 14mm but at 5 times the cost and twice the weight and size.
I love the 14mm FOV, the wider the better :)
-
I like the 20/1.8 AF-S and 24/1.4 AF-S for aurora borealis and views of the Milky Way. I used to have the 14-24/2.8 as well but I sold it; I was just never a fan of the 14mm angle of view. Of the two primes, I think at equal apertures (e.g. f/2.8 ) the 24 is sharper but for Milky Way I prefer the 20mm angle of view. With the 20mm I noticed that if I focus on a star that is about 1/4 of the long axis of the frame, the edge at the opposite side of the frame was slightly out of focus. I did not observe this in other situations where I had focused on a more central area. I think this problem is solved by evaluating focus on several stars. Neither lens has very easy to use manual focus rings (there is a bit of play) but the 24mm's ring allows more precise focusing to be achieved. With respect to results I am satisfied with both but I have the feeling the edge/corner issues are a bit more prevalent with the 20mm than the 24mm when evaluated at equal apertures (but then the angle of view is greater so it is understandable). The 14-24 is very good as well but I prefer the primes. Sometimes I found focusing with the zoom more difficult because with f/2.8 the live view shows fewer stars, however, on the other hand, there was no play in the manual focusing ring of my 14-24. I think the 24/1.4 is sharper at f/2.8 than the zoom, but of course the zoom allows the adjustment of the angle of view. For the photography of aurora, I prefer the primes because they allow recording of the activity with shorter exposure times, leading to more fine detail of the aurora to be preserved.
One thing that would be nice is if the standard (non-astro) D810 could get a firmware update to allow live view to better simulate longer exposures. I understand that the D810A live view extends to longer exposure times so that you can see the stars better. Important for minimizing frustration trying to focus on the right subject. How is the D750 in this respect by the way?
I have not used the other lenses mentioned in your query.
-
14-24 2.8 and 24 1.4 AFS both does it all... with the 24mm 1.4 as some level higher than the zoom since it is the 'weakest' end of the zoom range.
20mm 1.8 AFS is super nice also but I have not shot stars with it...
Live view check is mandetory with these two AFS lenses for sky images...
-
Thank you gentlemen.
Jan Anne, I saw and read your review. In general I like this lens a lot, but am concerned about variation between samples. The closest Samyang agent is 1200km from me. Please comment?
Ikka, I wish I could have both 20mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.4, but I can't afford both at the moment. The tests I have read show that the Tamron 15-30 is as sharp wide-open as the 20mm f1.8 is at f2.8, and thus I am leaning toward the Tamron as it is cheaper and gives more options? Is the 20mm f1.8 sharp enough wide-open, or do you tend to stop down?
Unfortunately I have no idea how the D750's live view compares to the D800, as I am only getting the D750 with this lens, and have never used the D800.
Thanks for the advice Erik
-
The D750 has a much improved Live View compared to the D800.
-
In general I like this lens a lot, but am concerned about variation between samples. The closest Samyang agent is 1200km from me. Please comment?
There's indeed some sample variation, my advice would be to buy from a camera store which is known to have a good return policy.
Btw, if you use AF lenses its best to use the AF-ON button for focussing and disable the focus activation for the release button, this way the focus isn't changed by the release button nor the focus ring. With the Samyang I use gaffertape to secure the focus ring after a infinity is dialled in based on a couple of testshots.
-
Of the lenses on your list I have tried only the Nikkor 14-24mm. It is my first choice for night photography of the northern lights - it's the best lens I have tried for that purpose, and I often need the extra width 14mm gives me. I use it wide open most of the time, and the image quality is excellent. I once compared it on 24mm against the Nikkor 24-70 on 24mm, and the 14-24 was far better.
I have tried the Samyang 14mm, but it did not give a good impression - on the contrary. First, the focus was way off. Stars got reasonably sharp when the lens was focused somewhere between 3 and 5 meters. When properly focused image quality in the center was OK, corners not good at all. I was not impressed.
-
Thank you Gentlemen.
Jan, there is only one agent for this lens in South Africa, and they only have one example in stock, and as mentioned they are quite far away, therefore I am concerned.
I have been using back-button focussing for a couple of years, and have no intention of going back, so no worries there.
-
When I do stars and treetops type images I typically capture images both wide open (you record the most light and best signal to noise ratio especially in the center of the image) as well as another image stopped down to f/2.5-f/2.8 (to get the best sharpness and minimal coma in the corners). I use a lightweight tracking mount. I usually end up preferring the images shot wide open because of the richness of tone. Of course hard core astro people will average multiple images and combine them in image processing but I want to be able to get the image in a simpler way. If you are really picky about coma then stopping down both the 24 and 20mm is necessary. I'm more into getting the best tonal quality but of course it is enjoyable to see a perfect image right to the corners.
In my experience with a f/2.8 lens, aurora at least in Southern Finland (even during a real storm such as the one in March earlier this year) require something like 15s to register and the fine pattern changes every few seconds so basically you get an average over a longer time and the fine detail is smeared out. This can look fine (and seems a widely accepted approach) but I like the fine structure, and want to do something a bit differently, so I go with the faster lens. ;) The more light you can gather the better the quality of signal and the more colour information in the aurora is seen in the image. But a 14-24 can work fine as well it gives you the option of including more of the sky. I just find that there is a limit to the amount of keystoning in the trees that I can put up with and this is one reason that has lead me to use the 20 and 24mm instead of 14mm.
Thanks Bjorn for the information regarding the D750 live view. I've seen a demonstration that the D750 has less long exposure noise at high ISO than the D810.
-
Thank you Ikka
While I would love to shoot the northern lights one day, here in my vicinity there is no chance of that!
These two rather pathetic images should at least give you some idea of what I am trying to do, just with more stars. They were taken with a D7000 and a borrowed Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6, shot wide-open at 10mm.
Here in the southern hemisphere, the milky way usually extends quite high into the sky, and therefore I need either the wide angle (14-16mm, sometimes even more), or I will have to start doing panoramas, which is why I am not looking at the 24's at this stage.
-
Why are you boys not saying anything about the Tokina?
I dont know the one Peter is referring to - but I believe the 11-16 produces good images.
Yes I know the 11-16 is DX - wondering if the 16-28 doesnt also have a good rep?
-
Elsa, looking at the reviews, the Tamron is even better. In fact, it seems as though the Tamron may actually be sharper at shortest focal length and wide open than the Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8!
I have just found a Nikkor 14mm f2.8 (prime) second-hand for a reasonable price. Does anybody here have any experience with this lens?
-
I own one and can confirm while it is pretty good, it is no match for a 14-24/2.8 Nikkor.
-
Thank you Bjorn.
I presume that is the 14mm f2.8 you are referring to?
-
If I did not own a very good copy of the 1.4/24G I would certainly buy the 1.8/20G. Why? Becuse the new 20mm
is very light and nicely to handle. The 1.4/24 is a heavy chunk of glass. The D750 balances very well with the 20mm.
Also for the price the 20 is a very good performer also in the near field. You can make a frame with half of it one
eye of a person the rest showing the whole room. Kind of super wide macro potential.
PS when I was on a budget I used the Tokina 12-24 on FX. Starting at 18mm it covered the whole frame. Alas only f=4
-
Peter: Yes. The AF-D Nikkor 14 mm f/2.8. It was considered mandatory back in the old D1 days, together with the 17-35/2.8.
-
Thank you Frank and Bjorn
-
AF-D Nikkor 14 mm f/2.8 is really good on a DX camera with the new RAW converters CA removal tools
20mm AFS 1.8 has a very decent IQ into the corners wide open.
I forgot to mention 16mm Full Frame Fisheye, and for night shooting the manual version f/3.5 is perfect! This is a true sky lens!
I use the 16mm AF-D 2.8 but it has not so good MF ring....
-
Thsnk you Eric
how do you deal with the distortion of the horizon when trying to keep it low in the frame?
-
With any Fisheye, there is a great difference whether the lens is pointing a little down- or upwards. The curvature of the horizon introduced by the latter in fact is more easily accepted and thus requires little or no additional correction. Just ensure your stand point is quite low to allow the lens pointing a bit upwards.
Some swear by a 'hemi' fisheye correction plugin that allows some residual curvature. Not tried by me, though.
-
Thank you Bjorn, I guess I will need to see if I can try one sometime.
-
Choose a non flat horizon :) or leave the horizon out of the image frame.
-
Of the lenses you mention I have used only the Samyang 14/2.8
I think it is optically excellent, particularly in relation to its price.
The two (big) disadvantages, at least for me are that:
1) the barrel distortion is huge
2) Infinity focus is achieved very far from the infinity mark on the barrel.
In my case it was more between the 2 and 3 m marks, if I remember correctly (still have the lens but no more Nikon DSLR's to check)
-
Thank you Simato.
According to some reports, this misalignment between the focus marks and the actual focus has been fixed or at least improved.
-
Thank you Simato.
According to some reports, this misalignment between the focus marks and the actual focus has been fixed or at least improved.
That's good for prospective new buyers, too late for me.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the lens behaves very well in terms of coma - useful if you are interested in night photography.
Astigmatism is also low if I remember correctly.
-
No issue here with the infinity focus mark on my Sammy 14/2.8 other than I wished it had a hard infinity stop.
-
The distance scale is not reliable even on Nikon AF-S lenses, so Samyang should not impose too much of an extra problem.
-
Akira, you are correct, and in any event I don't really use focus distance scales.
Jan, I heard somewhere that the focus distance of a lens may change as a result of temperature, and will probably change as a result of aperture changes.
I was just trying to find a friend in Cape Town (where the local Samyang agent is based) who could go and test the Samyang for me to make sure I don't get a lemon, and phoned the dealer to find out if they would allow it, only to find out that they are out of stock. Sold the last one yesterday...
-
Jan, I heard somewhere that the focus distance of a lens may change as a result of temperature, and will probably change as a result of aperture changes.
With modern ED glass infinity can change with temperature, that's why most current lenses focus a little beyond infinity to compensate.
Older Nikkor lenses don't have this "issue" and have a hard infinity stop which makes dialling in infinity so much easier, especially in low light situations.
As mentioned before, dial in infinity and secure the focus ring with gaffer tape when doing multiple images :)
-
Thanks Jan
Actually, I wish there was an AI-S lens in this class... I love these older lenses.
-
I thought I would mention the Rokinon 24/1.4.
I have had 4 of these go through my hands before returning them. All of them had misalignment issues (except one) in which one corner or edge of the frame was not in focus compared to the other areas. This was particularly noticeable on star fields where the sharpness of the stars is easily inspected. Wide open, one of them was beautiful in all 4 corners both in sharpness and coma correction and exceeded the performance of MY 14-24/2.8 set at 24mm. I regret returning it BUT it had such bad focus slop it was driving me insane to get critical focus on the stars.
If Rokinon would just work on their QC I would pay double for that "perfect" lens.
-
Thank you Shane
I am still torn between the 20mm f1.8 and the 15-30mm f2.8.
I think the Nikkor must probably be slightly better for the primary purpose, and has the advantage that it can gather a bit more light if you are prepared to accept lower IQ, but it has some concerning issues (such as severe vignetting exactly at the apertures and focus distances I want to use it at and difficult-to-use manual focus), while the Tamron appears to be a more versatile lens, and here in SA it is cheaper than the 20mm (unlike elsewhere in the world).
Weight and size are not an issue, i have a big car. More to the point, the places I go to mostly don't really allow walking, particularly not after dark.
-
I wouldn't say the vignetting is "severe". I don't currently have other 20mm reference lenses to compare with but according to DXOMark (using the D750 as test camera), the 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss has 1.9 stops of vignetting at f/2.8 whereas the 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor has 0.9 stops at f/2.8 and 1.9 stops at f/1.8. The 14-24 at 20mm has 1.5 stops at 20mm at f/2.8. So at f/2.8 the 20/1.8 would seem to have less vignetting than the "gold standard" lenses. I wasn't able to find a dxomark test for the Tamron lens yet.
-
Plus the various figures for corner fall-off are dubious at best. One can arrive at almost any value simply by massaging image contrast. Since the better RAW converters have vignetting tools, this inevitable fact of optics is not the big deal-breaker it once was, as correction if required can be conducted in the first processing stage anyway. For current digital cameras with their high dynamic range, any quality loss from lifting corners is negligible.
-
Vignetting can be measured e.g. by taking a photograph of a gray patch scale which has measured reflectances and positioning this in the center of the image. The pixel values in the corners can be compared with the gray patches and vignetting in EV is determined. The contrast or tone curve has no effect on such a measurement. An alternative approach (which requires no extra tools) is to take a sequence of exposures and convert them all with fixed settings (and vignetting correction off) in the raw converter, and then compare the resulting RGB values (or luminance if you're not interested in color shift) between frame center and corner across exposures. Once you find the pair of images where the center and corner match luminance values then the (maximal) vignetting is approximately equal to the difference between the exposures of those two images. However, some sites report something else entirely than vignetting in EV even though they mark the result as EV ... In such a case it can be that the tone curve affects the outcome which is not at all in units of EV anyway. I bite my lips and grind my teeth when I see "tests" like this.
With some lenses vignetting can be so strong that there is some residual fluctuations even after correction and there is a significant buildup of noise (i.e. 4-5 EV vignetting would potentially cause this). Also in astrophotography it is common to apply several consequtive S curves to the image to bring out the faint features and I would not say the profile based correction works perfectly at least not with ACR lens profiles. Perhaps some other converters have higher quality profiles and produce better results. However, I have not found this to be at all a problem with the mild vignetting of the 20/1.8 in fact I often leave it in place (but as I said before I normally take another exposure at f/2.8 - not because it is necessary but because it is easy to do and it provides an alternative view).
-
There obviously is a limit to what level of correction can be applied and no ill effects detected. However, -2 EV is not the draw back it was in the film age.
I have tried on several occasions to verify the reported vignetting figures found on DXOmark and similar, and been unable to get the same result. I did measure pixel levels corner and centre on captures of uniformly lit white panels (reduced exposure to avoid clipping) with gamma=1.
-
Hi Peter, while upgrading lenses for my D800 from using a DX camera, I bought the Tokina 16-28 as a wide angle, being a good lens from f4 and up for the cost. I did not have any particular discipline for it in mind at the time ie landscape, star trials etc, and got it mostly as an all singing all dancing wide angle for whatever situation may require it. Reasonably happy with it.
My only comparison is a photo I took with Jan Anne's 14-24 Nikkor on my D300, and that just blew me away, but I could not afford the 14-24 as well as the 24-70 at the time of purchase.
The attached photo was taken with the Tokina at 16mm.
-
Your Tokina seems to being just fine. I have not tried it, but have heard mostly good things about it. The Nikkor 14-24 is brilliant, but one has to be aware of the focus shift. However I think the Zeiss 15mm/2,8 is The King of superwideangles.
-
Thank you gentlemen
BjornJ, I wish I could afford one of those, but sadly, not at this stage.
Fanie, thanks for that.
Bjorn and Ikka, according to Photographylife's test (hope that's not a swearword around here), the 20mm f1.8 has almost three stops vignetting in the corners at f1.8 and infinity focus (it reduces a lot when focused closer).
If shooting at low ISO's, I am sure this can be pulled back in PP without any problems, but when shooting at ISO3200-ISO6400, I am not convinced one would be able to pull back the vignetting, and stopping down to f2.8 will mean additional noise across the frame. Of course, by f2.8 it is out-performing the Tamron, but it is longer, and therefore the shutter allowable shutter speed is reduced...
I will have to see if I can fiddle with both...
Thanks for all the nowledgeable advice received so far.
-
Thanks, I will look into the infinity vignetting and see if I can observe a difference. There are some complications in the experiment with finding a homogeneous, infinite, Lambertian surface.
-
In particular with a wide field of view, I surmise.
-
For better or for worse, I have acquired the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8.
Tested both it and the Nikkor, and although the Nikkor has the advantage of f1.8, it only surpasses the sharpness of the Tamron at around f2.8, so it loses the advantage, and I like the shorter focal length the Tamron delivers.
Hopefully I will get an opportunity to use it for it's intended purpose next weekend.
-
Plus the various figures for corner fall-off are dubious at best. One can arrive at almost any value simply by massaging image contrast.
If the measurements are read off from RAW data levels (e.g. in RawDigger), this degree of freedom should be absent.
I see something between 1.5 and 2 stops of vignetting with the Nikkor 20/1.8 at f/1.8 using that method. Nothing too severe.