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!
Photo

Replacement UWA zoom lens.


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1
g4aaw pete

g4aaw pete

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBirchington, North Kent Coast.

Site Supporter

My Sigma 12-24mm was returned as faulty to my supplier (London Camera Centre).

They sent it to Sigma for repair. Sigma stated that it was far too old & they couldn't help.

My supplier has issued a refund, which is great, but now I feel I can’t live without a replacement of some kind.

 

On the second-hand market, the two I’m considering are

 

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 D EX, an oldie but by all accounts quite reliable. They’re noted for being cheap, but very prone to flare.

 

Nikon 14-24 f2.8 G ED, over three times the price I paid for the Sigma 12-24, but rather more reliable.

Seems to get good reviews.

 

I appreciate the two are worlds apart..

 

Are there other possibilities in a similar zoom range I’ve not considered, that won’t cause my wife to say things like, ‘you spend far too much on photography gear. Why can’t you take an interest in keeping ferrets instead?’

 

 



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,024 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The Nikkor is a bit prone to flare as well. If the Tamron 15-30/2.8 had been out yet when I bought mine, I would have bought that instead. That said, the 14-24/2.8 was the first UWA zoom that had low enough distortion to be acceptable to be used for architectural magazines.

#3
g4aaw pete

g4aaw pete

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBirchington, North Kent Coast.

Site Supporter

Thanks for your comments Peter - appreciated.

 

Something I didn't check was the weight of the weight of the Nikon 14-24, which is around 1Kg. This is very similar to the Tamron you mention.

I think this is going to be a bit heavy for the likes of me!

 

The Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 which I have is around 800g. The weight of that makes me leave it at home when I'm out & about.

 

I'll see what becomes available from the second-hand dealers that offer a warranty.



#4
fallout666

fallout666

    Forum Veteran

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

like Merco_61 said 12-24mm F/4 gave me some flare if was shooting straight into sun light when trying to take photo of car shows. on my D5300 and D7200. will not and did not try on my Z6 so can not tell if got more on Full frame body where i do not use the shutter on it. 



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,024 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

If you can live with 16 mm at the wide end, the 16-35/4 has reasonably low mass and is built to the same quality standard as the 70-200/4 and the 24-120/4. It has some slight moustache-shaped distortion between 16 and 19 mm, but NX Studio can correct it just as well as the jpeg engine in the camera does, so it won’t be noticeable.



#6
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,824 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

If price is a major consideration, and you can live with slightly less on the wide end, I can recommend the Nikon AF-S 18-35 f/3.5-4.5. Yes, it can be prone to flare when pointed at strong light sources such as the sun, and it probably doesn’t have the reputation that some other lenses have, but I’ve found it to be a solid performer. Much better than I expected when I purchased it. 

 

—Ron



#7
g4aaw pete

g4aaw pete

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBirchington, North Kent Coast.

Site Supporter

Thanks for further suggestions Peter & Ron
Yes, price is a consideration, but so is weight.

If I bought a zoom with 18mm at the wide end, I'd always be looking for something wider!

As a temporary solution, I could use my DX 10-20mm. This gives reasonable results, but of course puts the D800e into DX mode - 16mp.

#8
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,024 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The 16-35 is 680 grams, the good old 17-35/2.8 is 745 or 730 depending on when it was made. The 18-35 G, however, is only 385. They can all handle the D800E sensor, unlike the 18-35 D. 

 

If you go looking for a 17-35, make sure that you get the lighter, later version with serial numbers over 400001 as spares for the first version are getting difficult to find. 

 

Is it really the 10-20 you have and not the 10-24? The 10-20 shouldn't work on the D800 as it is AF-P.



#9
g4aaw pete

g4aaw pete

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBirchington, North Kent Coast.

Site Supporter

The 16-35 is 680 grams, the good old 17-35/2.8 is 745 or 730 depending on when it was made. The 18-35 G, however, is only 385. They can all handle the D800E sensor, unlike the 18-35 D. 

 

If you go looking for a 17-35, make sure that you get the lighter, later version with serial numbers over 400001 as spares for the first version are getting difficult to find. 

 

Is it really the 10-20 you have and not the 10-24? The 10-20 shouldn't work on the D800 as it is AF-P.

 

Thanks Peter.

Some interesting data you've given.

 

The most recent firmware V1.11 A & B (2018) adds support for AF-P DX lenses.

Works ok with the 10-20 AF-P DX (yes it is the cheaper 10-20), but of course introduces DX-mode limitations.



#10
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,824 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

As Peter pointed out, the 18-35G is very lightweight... something I should have pointed out originally. It's also an IF lens. Internal focus and internal zoom, which means that it doesn't grow on you while you're using it, and the front element doesn't rotate so no pesky fiddling around when using polarizers, etc. 

 

But I completely understand about always wanting something wider. There is, I'm afraid, no cure for that.

 

--Ron



#11
g4aaw pete

g4aaw pete

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBirchington, North Kent Coast.

Site Supporter

 

 

But I completely understand about always wanting something wider. There is, I'm afraid, no cure for that.

 

--Ron

 

Well, there is - taking up stamp collecting instead.

 

I'm obliged to Peter for the 'single lens challenge', otherwise:

 

I wouldn't have used my Sigma 12-24 so much

It wouldn't have failed within the warranty period

Further down the line I'd be left with a manual-focus only UWA

 

The experience has rather put me off Sigma HSM lenses, though I appreciate lots of users may never have a problem. 


  • Ron likes this

#12
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,824 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Well, there is - taking up stamp collecting instead.

 

My twelve year old self is nodding....

 

--Ron