A while back I bought a 14mm

[Steven Paulsen]

I do not own the Nikkor 14-24. (I have also heard so many praises for this lens, that it might be a bunch of crap, so one will buy it.)

I have the older D version of a Sigma/14mm/3.5. My take, it's Ok, maybe good on 16mp - 24mp, depending on careful composition. (The lens is a compromise, not a bread winner.) There are several 14's in the "Low Price" category:
Samyang
Rokinon
Vivitar
Sigma 3.5 or 2.8.
Probably others

If say the Samyang or other is an improvement on my old Sigma, I'll play & spin the wheel. Nikon's 14-24 has been on my NAS list forever, but I sometimes take issue when the contents of my carry sack costs more than a good used car.

Has anyone explored the bottom end of low cost 14mm's and has an opinion?

[Tristin]

If I wanted a UW prime, I would go for Laowa.  The 12/2.8 is stellar both optically and mechanically, I'm sure their 15/2 isn't far off.  A bit pricier than the brands you listed, but the lack of CA and visible distortion makes it more than worth it imo.  CA especially.  While CA doesn't bother me too much typically, it absolutely ruins UW images by giving the outer regions a smeary look.  I returned the Irix 11/4 for this reason.  Sometimes the images came out great, sometimes the outer regions were "barfy" as my wife put it, and it wasn't a sharpness issue.  The distortion alone on the Samyang/Rokinons put them on my do-not-buy list, the complexity of their distortion is sufficient that correcting it is going to toss out the sharpness they do provide.

[Steven Paulsen]

I have found that when using less than stellar wide angle lenses, just a bit of micro tilt of the cameras body can make a huge difference in what the edges look like. A crappy wide can almost look good in the corners when placed correctly..


Th Nikon prime may be of interest. It isn't a much used lens. Sometimes I run out of ground and can't get any further back. Adding a 14mm can make things worse because of foreground distortion..

[Pistnbroke]

14mm samyang for ever ..I will never sell it ...if you buy manual just put it on f 5.6 and 10ft focus and just shoot ..its so sharp you will not believe it

[Erik Lund]

The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 AF-D is actually affordable as a used lens- Works quite well and I have very good architecture images that turned out crisp and with great details across the image, however not consistent,,, 

Irix somehow I never fell in love with,,, inconsistent
 
So I'm back using the 14-24mm AFS f/2.8 it is much more predictable and without so much distortion - by far I prefer lenses without too much barrel or pincushion distortion, it takes away some of the crispness away when corrections are needed in the in-camera firmware or post production.

You have too look out for rainbow flare if the sun sees that big front element,,, otherwise a workhorse of a lens

[Steven Paulsen]

For purpose of completing an ongoing process.


After sort of thnking the Nikon 14 would be the best bet, I followed a whim on a discounted, oddball.
The Irix 11mm/f4 is something I'm awlfully glad I picked up.
It has been snow covered outside so check the corners shots are a bit of a wait.


 A less than stellar 1.4 converter yields a 15/f5.6, which actually blows the Sigma 14 away. The sigma comparison is fairy horrible compared to the Irix with a 1.4.


Excellent and fun, not so little lens