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

Using a 12-24 mm on D800 (or D810)


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
D300

D300

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Country Flag

I am in need of a wide angle zoom. I now have both full frame bodies. In the past I had and loved the 12-24 F4 DX lens. But I got rid of it with the DX stuff.

 

So here is my question, both the currently available wide angle zooms, the 14-24 and 16-35 are big, and heavy. To big and two heavy. The D800 (and I assume the 810) has the multi format cropping settings. Has anyone ever tried putting this lens on a D800 and seeing what setting covers the field of view of the 12-24 lens?

 

What I would like to know is would it possible to use the 12-24 as a smaller lower weight alternative to the big zooms mentioned above? I do like wide so 16 to around 18 at the widest is what I am looking for. I did the math and the 12-24 should be 18mm (X 1.5) at its widest on a full frame body is using the DX crop.

 

But since the 800 has other crops what works and what doesn't work?

 

Also does the 810 have the same multi-crop settings as the 800?



#2
Adam

Adam

    Nikon Forums Staff

  • Administrators
  • 1,334 posts
  • Country Flag

The D810 does have multiple crop formats.  I haven't tested this particular lens, but usually DX zooms have pretty decent FX coverage near the long end, and 24mm at FX is still wider than 12mm in DX mode.

 

Despite this, my recommendation would be to go with a prime for the best image quality- say the 24mm F2.8D?



#3
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The AF-S 18-35/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED is nice if you want something lighter and smaller. I don't like how it balances on the pro bodies, personally, as it is so light but it might be worth trying out in a store or renting one. It isn't quite as crisp on the D8xx series' bodies as the 14-24, but it is probably better than using the DX crop.



#4
Russ

Russ

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Country Flag

I find the 16-35 quite light, have you held it?



#5
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

I have a Nikkor AFS 18-35 F/3.5-4.5G IF-ED. I love how light it is and I'm still blown away by how good it is optically, especially considering how inexpensive it is. I'm sure it can be bested by some of Nikon's more expensive super wide angle zooms but this lens is no slouch. And, I'm pretty sure it's a better alternative to using a DX lens in crop mode. 

 

--Ron



#6
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

You could also look at the 17-35 f2.8 (about the same price as the 14-24 f2.8) if you want a zoom.  You also have the option of the 20 f2.8 or 20 f1.8 which are definitely less expensive than those two zooms.  Adam already suggested the option of a 24mm which is why I didn't mention those (f1.4, f1.8, f2.8).  

 

I primarily shoot sports, so more long glass than wide glass, but the 14-24 would be my choice...it is on my list - just not sure where on the list until I get some things in order and decide my greatest current need!  



#7
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Just a little comparison.

Skärmavbild 2016-04-27 kl. 17.38.20.png

 

I can see not wanting to carry the 14-24, but the 16-35/4 is so well balanced that it doesn't feel heavy when in use.

 



#8
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA
So, I'll just throw this out there, even though it's actually a little heavier than the 14-24. But I really love my Tamron 15-30 on my 810. The reviews I read on it before I bought it were fantastic, and it's lived up to them all. I shoot on a tripod mostly with it, so weight isn't normally an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#9
Jerry_

Jerry_

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Country Flag

So, I'll just throw this out there, even though it's actually a little heavier than the 14-24. But I really love my Tamron 15-30 on my 810. The reviews I read on it before I bought it were fantastic, and it's lived up to them all. I shoot on a tripod mostly with it, so weight isn't normally an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Was thinking the same.

Use mine both handheld and on a tripod - and it gives fantastic results.

#10
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

For me, the weight and bulk of the 14-24 is worth it. If I hadn't already bought the 14-24 when the Tamron was released, I would have had a much more difficult choice to make. My current SWA is the 14-24, but I have had a 17-35 and before that a 20-35/2.8. I really liked the 17-35 as a pj lens but as mine was an early one, it couldn't be repaired when the focusing motor wore out. I still use it sometimes as a manual focus lens when I need to use a ND filter as I haven't got the 150 mm filters or the holder for the 14-24. 

Like I said earlier, don't overlook the 18-35 as it is much better than the price tag suggests.