Fast wide-angle lens request

[Peter Connan]

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

[Jan Anne]

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

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

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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...

[Peter Connan]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The D750 has a much improved Live View compared to the D800.

[Jan Anne]

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.

[Bjørn J]

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.

[Peter Connan]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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. 

[Peter Connan]

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.

[elsa hoffmann]

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?

[Peter Connan]

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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I own one and can confirm while it is pretty good, it is no match for a 14-24/2.8 Nikkor.

[Peter Connan]

Thank you Bjorn.

I presume that is the 14mm f2.8 you are referring to?