12-24DX or 14mm to replace a 20mm ?

Martin Bond · May 10, 2004

Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that 20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.

Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction... i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the 12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than the 14mm lense ?

And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

Kent Johnson · May 10, 2004

Hi Martin,

I own a D100, 12-24mm dx, and the 20mm 2.8. The 12-24mm is a "better' lens than the 20mm in that it is more modern and a tiny bit sharper. That said, it is also f/4 so it has been called "darker" and I would have to agree. It is big and fairly heavy. It is best suited to landscape photography (IMHO).

As for using the 12-24 on a film camera it works very well on my N80 down to 18mm. The quiet focussing is also very nice and fast.

Good luck,

Kent

Kent J · May 10, 2004

...I found the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 kinda fun.

http://www.bythom.com/14lens.htm

Here's Thom Hogans review of the f/3.5 version.

-Kent

Martin Bond said:
Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction...
i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the
12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than
the 14mm lense ?
And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be
disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use
with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

--
Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.pbase.com/kjoosten

Paul Szilard · May 10, 2004

I agree with Ken. I also have the 20 and recently bought the 12-24. The quality of both lenses is 1st class IMHO, and the 12-24 gives nothing away and may even be a bit better. I wouldn't worry about the aperture and the SilentWave motor is fantastic.

The only thing to consider is that for architectural work (ie lots of straight lines) some of the earlier 12-24 had a slight wave distortion, called "mustache" distortion. Interestingly mine doesn't! It is only 10 days old - for me. Don't know manufactring date.

It is a truly beautiful lens and even if you don't need the zoom now, it is very useful. With the 1.5 apparent multiplier factor on DSLRs, it translates to 18-36mm which covers 18, 20, 24, 28 and 35 mm lenses - roughly speaking. To get all of these at prime quality in a single SilentWave lens must be a bargain!

-just me 2 cents' worth. Enjoy your decision...

-paul

Kent Johnson said:
Hi Martin,

I own a D100, 12-24mm dx, and the 20mm 2.8. The 12-24mm is a
"better' lens than the 20mm in that it is more modern and a tiny
bit sharper. That said, it is also f/4 so it has been called
"darker" and I would have to agree. It is big and fairly heavy. It
is best suited to landscape photography (IMHO).

As for using the 12-24 on a film camera it works very well on my
N80 down to 18mm. The quiet focussing is also very nice and fast.

Good luck,

Kent

--
paul szilard
[email protected]

Paul Szilard · May 10, 2004

I know this is a point of frequent disagreement, so don't flame me, but I had an early Sigma 14mm and when I finally saw a slide at the camera club taken with the Nikkor 20/2.8 I was so shocked that something can be SO much better than my Sigma that I put the Sigma up for sale the next day and bought the Nikon 20.

The Sigma (at least mine) was soft and had a yellow colour cast, and lower contrast. I wouldn't recommended to anyone.

The newer ones may be improved, but TRY BEFORE YOU BUY is my recommendation!

'nuf said. Sorry if I stepped on some toes, but I am speaking about my own experiences and my old lens. Your milage may vary.

-paul

Kent J said:
http://www.bythom.com/14lens.htm

Here's Thom Hogans review of the f/3.5 version.

-Kent

Martin Bond said:

Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction...
i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the
12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than
the 14mm lense ?
And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be
disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use
with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

Click to expand...

--
Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.pbase.com/kjoosten

--
paul szilard
[email protected]

Kent J · May 10, 2004

No problem. I sold mine - but that was to help pay for the 17-35.

-Kent

Paul Szilard said:
The Sigma (at least mine) was soft and had a yellow colour cast,
and lower contrast. I wouldn't recommended to anyone.

The newer ones may be improved, but TRY BEFORE YOU BUY is my
recommendation!

'nuf said. Sorry if I stepped on some toes, but I am speaking about
my own experiences and my old lens. Your milage may vary.

-paul

Kent J said:

http://www.bythom.com/14lens.htm

Here's Thom Hogans review of the f/3.5 version.

-Kent

Martin Bond said:

Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction...
i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the
12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than
the 14mm lense ?
And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be
disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use
with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

Click to expand...

--
Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.pbase.com/kjoosten

Click to expand...

--
paul szilard
[email protected]

--
Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.pbase.com/kjoosten

Paulo Abreu · May 10, 2004

Hi,

Paul Szilard said:
I agree with Ken. I also have the 20 and recently bought the 12-24.
The quality of both lenses is 1st class IMHO, and the 12-24 gives
nothing away and may even be a bit better. I wouldn't worry about
the aperture and the SilentWave motor is fantastic.

The only thing to consider is that for architectural work (ie lots
of straight lines) some of the earlier 12-24 had a slight wave
distortion, called "mustache" distortion. Interestingly mine
doesn't! It is only 10 days old - for me. Don't know manufactring
date.

Interesting. I also have the 12-24DX and although I've heard some people referring it before, I don't notice it on my lens also. Where did you get the info about the earlier models problem?

Regards,

Member said:
It is a truly beautiful lens and even if you don't need the zoom
now, it is very useful. With the 1.5 apparent multiplier factor on
DSLRs, it translates to 18-36mm which covers 18, 20, 24, 28 and 35
mm lenses - roughly speaking. To get all of these at prime quality
in a single SilentWave lens must be a bargain!

-just me 2 cents' worth. Enjoy your decision...

-paul

Kent Johnson said:

Hi Martin,

I own a D100, 12-24mm dx, and the 20mm 2.8. The 12-24mm is a
"better' lens than the 20mm in that it is more modern and a tiny
bit sharper. That said, it is also f/4 so it has been called
"darker" and I would have to agree. It is big and fairly heavy. It
is best suited to landscape photography (IMHO).

As for using the 12-24 on a film camera it works very well on my
N80 down to 18mm. The quiet focussing is also very nice and fast.

Good luck,

Kent

Click to expand...

--
paul szilard
[email protected]

--
Paulo Abreu,

'Buy a FujiFilm S2 Pro TODAY because ONE DAY you will be dead !'
http://www.mcscenter.net/~psergio/index.php

Martin Bond · May 10, 2004

Hi again,
Thanks for the reply.

I will shoot architectural stuff for sure.

So i'd like to know more about that disortion. Is it important ? Does a lot of people had it ? Do you think the probleme is solved and buying a new one today should be ok ?

Thanks
Martin

Member said:
The only thing to consider is that for architectural work (ie lots
of straight lines) some of the earlier 12-24 had a slight wave
distortion, called "mustache" distortion. Interestingly mine
doesn't! It is only 10 days old - for me. Don't know manufactring
date.

motofoto · May 10, 2004

Martin Bond said:
I will shoot architectural stuff for sure.

the nikkor 12-24DX is unsuitable for architecture ... a simple search of the archives here or on other forums will reveal that the lens has a compound barrel distortion that is not only significant, but impossible to remove ... I've spent hours trying different coefficients in PanoTools with no luck, along with other software as well.

I've sold mine to get a sigma 12-24 ... no barrel distortion with the sigma.

chromatic abberations with the nikkor 12-24 are disturbing as well ... higher contrast areas had the magenta fringing up to six or eight pixels.

it's a pity, because at settings of 15mm and longer with apertures from F11 to F16 the nikkor is a wonderful lens ... great color and contrast, well controlled distortions, and very sharp.

but the 12mm setting is a problem, and you'll probably be using that setting with architectural work.

I seriously doubt that nikon has recently changed the optics of this lens to remove the problems with barrel distortion ... more likely the files are not being evaluated closely enough.

mike

rfc151260 · May 10, 2004

I bought this lens Nikkor 12-24 about a month ago and thus far I have found the strong criticisms of barrel distortion somewhat unwarrented. This lens takes nice pics...good contrast and saturation and sharp.

(None of the below photos had any barrel distortion corrections)

--
RFC
http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100

Paulo Abreu · May 11, 2004

Hey RFC, I've been browsing some of your 12-24 shots ... great stuff! keep inspiring.

Regards,

rfc said:
I bought this lens Nikkor 12-24 about a month ago and thus far I
have found the strong criticisms of barrel distortion somewhat
unwarrented. This lens takes nice pics...good contrast and
saturation and sharp.

(None of the below photos had any barrel distortion corrections)

--
RFC
http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100

--
Paulo Abreu,

'Buy a FujiFilm S2 Pro TODAY because ONE DAY you will be dead !'
http://www.mcscenter.net/~psergio/index.php

Roger T. · May 11, 2004

I keep the 12-24 DX on my D100 most of the time. It's a great walking-around lens, and it's not bad for interiors:

If you make an effort, you can see the distortion on wide-angle shots with straight elements parallel and close to the edge of the image -- most of the time it's not a problem.

There's more shots here -- the focal length it under the thumbnail, and everything less than 25 mm is with the 12-24 DX:

http://www.tinius-photo.com/Roger1/Cracow/

Martin Bond said:
Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.

--
Roger

... the dogs bark, but the caravan passes ...

Martin Bond · May 11, 2004

Hi,

Thanks for all of those replies !

So no one seems to talk about the Nikon 14mm lens !!
From what i read, 12-24 seems to be a better choice...

if i get it right, the distortion doesn't not seems to be very important... or maybe i missed something.

But my major goal in replacing the 20mm i used with film, is to shoot 360 degre panorama. Does anyone did that with the 12-24 ?
Is the distortion is a problem when we get to stiching ?

Thanks
Martin Bond
http://www.Bcom.ca

Lord of the Badgers · May 11, 2004

totally love me 12-24dx .. tho i would have preferred to have waited for the 17-55 for the versatility. that said, the 12-24 is alwasy a wide angle lens, not bad.

check http://www.bythom.com for a review. he thinks that esp at 24mm it's better than the prime (from memory). I found his view of the 12 end a little misleading as i think it rocks... sharpest non-macro lens i've ever owned

check out my galleries from the below link - check the people gallery, the brecon beacons gallery (halfway down the page) & some trains on my various gallery. here's a taster:

&

tho the above one is prone to the jagglies.. my fault probably

--
I am Badger, hear me snuffle!
----------------------------------------
D100, 12-24 dx, 18-35 IF ED, Sigma 180 Ex Macro
http://www.pbase.com/lord_of_the_badgers/

Bobby Handal · May 12, 2004

I think that the 20mm Nikkor is a great lens, I kept mine.

I too missed a wider angle lens. The 14mm I considered but it is expensive and it does not take filters. The 12-24 is also expensive but takes filters, this is great for polarizing filter, infrared filter, etc.

That is why I went for the 12-24.

Another lens to consider if you don't mind NOT using filters, is the 10.5mm fisheye. I just bought this lens and its fantastic !! its fast (f2.8) and you have a choice whether you want the distortion or not (you rectify it very easy with several programs like nikon capture, photobrush, etc.). So its like having two lenses in one !!!

The price is not bad either. Best regards,

http://www.hondurasart.com/gallery/rhandal

Martin Bond said:
Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction...
i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the
12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than
the 14mm lense ?
And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be
disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use
with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

Kent Johnson · May 12, 2004

I'd have to agree. I have had somewhat better success using PanoTools to remove the BD at 12mm, though. I actually run the image through TWO sets of coefficients. Once for the outer Barrel and then again for the inner barrel. It seems to work a bit better than trying to figure out a compound coefficient.

Anyway, as much as I an Nikon guy I would have to say that the Sigma is much better for barrel distortion.

I'll leave it there...

Kent

Tim Whelan · May 12, 2004

Hi Martin,

I am in the same boat as you... I have a 20mm from my film days. Wonderful lens on my N90, but it just isn't wide enough on the D100. After months of pondering I finally just ordered a Nikon 12-24mm. For fun I also ordered a Peleng 8mm fisheye after seeing some cool shots from that lens on this forum.

I seriously considered the Nikkor 14mm and tried I renting it for a weekend to give it a spin. It is a very sharp and contrasty lens, but I found it physically very large and heavy (especially after being used to the 20mm). The big bulbous front element kind of freaked me out too. It just seemed a matter of time before I damaged it on something. The 12-24mm is much more compact and I like the fact that I will get an extra 2mm of "wideness". That, the ability to use 77mm filters and the generally great reviews are what finally convinced me.

Speaking of boats, below is a picture I took with the rented 14mm. Check out the distortion (barrel I think?) on the horizon and near the front of the cabin (the sailboat isn't lopsided). Sure was fun having a real wide angle lens again! Can't wait for the 12-24.

Good luck on your decision!

Best-Tim
--
http://www.tgw.net

Martin Bond · May 13, 2004

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your reply,

Well, you have interesting points in your post. The 14mm i to be handled with care i think. But on the other side, i'm a bit worried about the "moustache" distortion that has been reported here many times... espacially at 12 and 14mm....

I also looked at the 10.5mm DX, but i think i may be too wide angle since i already have a sigma 8mm. It might not give me as much more pixels than the sigma when i shoot all the 360 degres.

If you have a chance, keep me posted about you feeling of the 12-24 when you have it.

Also, i really enjoyed your lighthouses picture !!

I invite you to look at mine (mostly 360 degre) at http://www.bcom.ca/english choose OTHER LANDSCAPE in the gallery.

Have a nice day,

Martin Bond
http://www.Bcom.ca

Kurt H · May 13, 2004

The other up side that many people here to do not like to talk about is you can put the 14mm on a film camera and have a real 14mm lens. The same can not be said for the DX lenses.

Martin Bond said:
Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction...
i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the
12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than
the 14mm lense ?
And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be
disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use
with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

Lord of the Badgers · May 13, 2004

what do you mean "do not like to talk about it"? Do you think people are trying to hide this fact? I don't think so mate.

Kurt H said:
Martin Bond said:

Hi,

Before my D-100, I use to work with a nikon 20mm lens and a film
body. Now i am really happy with the D-100, but i really miss that
20mm lens.

I saw two options: the Nikon 14mm lens, and the Nikon 12-24 dx.
Since what i miss is the 20mm, i don't require the zoom fonction...
i guess 14mm is very good to act as a 20mm on film. But since the
12-24 is dx and 500$ canadian less, maybe it is a better move than
the 14mm lense ?
And i guess one day we will work with D? full frame and be
disapointed with the dx lens right (since it is said not to use
with film) ?
Anyone has an opinion (or information url ) about that ?

Thanks

Martin

Click to expand...

--
I am Badger, hear me snuffle!
----------------------------------------
D100, 12-24 dx, 18-35 IF ED, Sigma 180 Ex Macro
http://www.pbase.com/lord_of_the_badgers/

12-24DX or 14mm to replace a 20mm ?

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Paul Szilard

Guest

Paul Szilard

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts