Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

12-24 vs 14-24 lenses, wide angle option for Nikon D5100

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic



    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Country Flag



I am looking at a wide angle Nikkor lens for my D5100. I often use a 16-85mm lens but would like to go a bit wider. I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX or the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S or potentially even the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G 


I know they all have heavy price tags so I was thinking of either renting or buying used. I primarily would like to use the lens for two upcoming trips for shooting wide landscapes in the Lofoten islands and for shooting ancient architecture in Uzbekistan.


Can anyone comment on what might be the best option for me? Which lens offers the best quality, most importantly the least distortion but also least vignetting and flare etc? for the 14-24, is the extra 2mm compared to my current lens even noticeable? I use cokin p series ND grad filters, with a wide angle single filter holder, could that still work at the widest angles? I will need to upgrade to Lee filters soon but not sure if my budget allows all of this before the trips.


Sorry if any of the questions are ignorant, I'm just a photography enthusiast


Thanks in advance for any advice





  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,326 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The 14-24 needs 150 mm filters. The 12-24 might be doable with one filter, if that. The front element is a bit recessed, so vignetting is probable at the widest FL.


The difference between 12 and 24 is very noticeable. The 14-24 feels very familiar in coverage to any PJ who is old enough as it covers the same range as the 20-35 did on film in the 90-s. The 2 mm difference doesn't seem like much, but to get the same change in FOV at 300 mm you would need something like 50 mm.

The diagonal AOV is roughly 100° with the 12-24 and 92° with the 14-24 at the widest settings @infinity focus.


The 10-24 is better optically than the 12-24 @12 mm, but it is built more like the 18-105 than the 16-85. For *me* the 12-24 would be a no-brainer for DX use, unless you start thinking third-party. The Tokina 11-20/2.8 or the predecessor 11-16/2.8 are both up there with the DX Nikons and can, depending on sample variations, beat them for sharpness, vignetting and distortion.


I often use my 14-24 on a D7200, but then, I often have a D750 or an old D700 along on some other lens and can use them when I need a wider view.



    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

from someone that owns 12-24mm DX lens its great lens to own and used. but is worth the price being only DX lens. since if want to got full frame will have to move up to 14-24mm. i was luck to get my nikon for $468 instead of full price of 1,150. great buy for me and bring with if need to us on my backup or second setting camera D7200 since i use Z6 as main camera now