14 prime or 12-24 DX zoom?

[Niccon]

Since I am into dslr (whether keeping current D70 or buying s3pro), the focal length will be increased by 1.52 times. So I need at least a wide lens of about 20mm (in Dx format) for landscape or occasion architecture. The prices of 14 prime & 12-24 zoom are about a few hundred apart. So I am wondering which to buy. I probably will not be getting them any sooner (well, if I can find used at reasonable price here why not).

My main concern about Dx is will Nikon keep dx format for long term? Or convert back to normal 35mm film standard (like Kodak dcs pro14n) when ccd sensor become economical for larger area. After all, 1.52 multiplications will give telephoto prime like 300f4/300f2.8 a run for money with/without 1.7 times TC (456 and 775 respectively) so demand for other longer range may be affected. With 14 prime I can use for either dslr or film except missing out zoom.

[mpenza]

there's also the Sigma 12-24 that is full-frame. worth considering if you want the flexibility of a zoom and have intention to move on to a full-frame DSLR/SLR later.

[Niccon]

Originally Posted by mpenza there's also the Sigma 12-24 that is full-frame. worth considering if you want the flexibility of a zoom and have intention to move on to a full-frame DSLR/SLR later.

I thought that is in Dx format too (something like DG, DI or DC cant tell the diff for sigma lens). Also, I offen hear comments that sigma lens is prone to fungus. How is the picture quality in term of colour/contrast & sharpness, any sample from galleries?

Thanks

[gooseberry]

As mpenza suggested, the Sigma 12-24 can be considered - I've seen some pretty good images come from this lens, although it is much larger, heavier and slower than the Nikon and you can't use front screw on filters 'cos of the huge front element.

Originally Posted by Niccon My main concern about Dx is will Nikon keep dx format for long term? Or convert back to normal 35mm film standard (like Kodak dcs pro14n) when ccd sensor become economical for larger area.

I think the DX format will be around for a while yet, here's my reasoning - when the cost of FF sensors come down to a reasonable level and Nikon introduces a FF model, it will probably only be the high end pro bodies initially. They will still be producing the bulk of their DSLRs (prosumer and consumer) in the DX format - because for any reduction in cost to produce FF sensors, you are going to see a larger reduction in cost for DX size sensors.

With the way things are going now, I wouldn't be suprised to see plenty of DX sized DSLRs selling for about the price of current prosumer/consumer film SLRs appear sometime over the next few years (ie. various models of DX sized DSLRs priced around S$500 - S$1000, like the way you have the F50, F55, F60, F65 etc)

Going by Nikon's production figures alone, by the end of the year, there's going to be over a million Nikon DX sized DSLRs sold worldwide and they will sell plenty more of DX sized DSLRs priced under S$1000 than any FF sized DSLRs priced above S$5000. So there will still be a large first and second hand market for DX sized DSLRs for a while.

[bernards]

I am not a market expert. But from what I have seen. Whether Nikon goes full frame on prosumer DSLRs will depend on Canon. The day Canon starts pushing 2k FF DSLRs, you'll know your DX lenses will be worth toilet paper soon. IMHO. It's a matter of time.

[Kit]

I tried out a Sigma 12-24 at John 3:16. It was pretty decent stopped down to arounf f8 and f11. One thing I found unusual from the lens I tried out is the performance drops quite significantly in mid focal length, around 17mm. Haven't got a chance to try out the 14mm.

[novaD70]

Yes, time can change everything. But look at the market base for this format now! Anyone here think it will happen soon that warrant a hobbyist to wait and see???? NO for me.

Originally Posted by bernards I am not a market expert. But from what I have seen. Whether Nikon goes full frame on prosumer DSLRs will depend on Canon. The day Canon starts pushing 2k FF DSLRs, you'll know your DX lenses will be worth toilet paper soon. IMHO. It's a matter of time.

[oeyvind]

Originally Posted by Kit I tried out a Sigma 12-24 at John 3:16. It was pretty decent stopped down to arounf f8 and f11. One thing I found unusual from the lens I tried out is the performance drops quite significantly in mid focal length, around 17mm. Haven't got a chance to try out the 14mm.

it's pretty decent wide open as well, corner-to-corner sharpness, at least when I test it on a film body and also 1.3x body.

[bernards]

Originally Posted by novaD70 Yes, time can change everything. But look at the market base for this format now! Anyone here think it will happen soon that warrant a hobbyist to wait and see???? NO for me.

If it's a $500 lense, frankly I won't care. But if it's $2000, I'll consider carefully first. A $1.6k wideangle might stay with me for 10 years or more, it will definitely warrant some consideration.

I don't have a black and white answer for you. You'll need to use your own common sense to find the answer.

[novaD70]

Originally Posted by bernards If it's a $500 lense, frankly I won't care. But if it's $2000, I'll consider carefully first. A $1.6k wideangle might stay with me for 10 years or more, it will definitely warrant some consideration. I don't have a black and white answer for you. You'll need to use your own common sense to find the answer.

Fair (and no I am not trying to debate). But think about this, today is 14 Aug 04; 13 Aug 04 will never never come back again and too bad I was not invited to the Istana on 12 Aug 04 or I would have missed that wide angle shot of history. And soon it will be 2005 then 2006 - still wait and see?

[bernards]

Like I said, I don't have a black and white answer. I meerly typed what I think. I personally feel FF is a matter of time. Whether you should buy a DX lense can only be answered by you. Apply your own common sense and you will find the answer you seek. Asking me a hypothetical question will not help you in anyway. Even if you ask'd me yesterday, in 2005, or 2006, the answer is still the same.

[gooseberry]

Sure, none of us can predict what will happen in the future, since we aren't experts - but I don't think Canon will bring out a FF DSLR at S$2K any time soon unless they make an absolute breakthrough (breakthroughs can happen, so can't rule it out). As Thom Hogan said, their current FF camera isn't priced to get as many out the door as they can (which they don't need to, since it is the flagship product to showcase their technology), which says something about the costs involved.

Looking at the rumours on new EF-S lenses from Canon - which will be restricted to the 1.6x crop factor cameras like the 300D and new 10D replacement, might be a clue that Canon won't be bringing FF sensors to the consumer/prosumer level for a while.

Whether you buy DX or EF-S lenses is really a personal choice - but you can buy a 10.5mm fisheye and 12-24 and use them NOW to take some great shots that you might not have the opportunity to take again instead of waiting around for some future DSLR utopia where DSLRs are all FF and priced under S$2k.

[bernards]

Gooseberry, now that is a fair comment.

But let me point out a few facts. No where in my posts did I invoke the impression it's going to happen soon. No where did I imply it's a definite bad idea to purchase DX lenses. In fact, the only logic I can find to a FF is when Canon starts selling 2k FF DSLRs. Nobody can see that happening in the short term. (I could be wrong and Nikon shocks the world by actually striking it out first.)

Unfortunately novaD70 some how manages to make me sound otherwise.

[2100]

Originally Posted by Kit I tried out a Sigma 12-24 at John 3:16. It was pretty decent stopped down to arounf f8 and f11..

MTF tests show that its optimum performance is sharpest at f16 for 12mm and f27 for 24mm. But i got it to use from 12-15mm anyway. I think of the zoom as a bonus for convenience. Stopped down to f16 12mm, it is pretty sharp. If I may make a comment (take it with a grain of salt), it is even sharper than the sigma 14mm prime especially so in the corners. I am not sure about the Nikkor 14mm prime.

[strider]

eRR, how much is the prime compare to the 12-24. Are both DX?
thanks

[Niccon]

For those who are interested in sigma 12-24 detail review, here is the link :

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/R..._f4.5-5.6.html

14 prime (not Dx) is about 1.8k, I think
12-24 Dx is about 1.5k

[espn]

Nikon list price for the Nikkor 14 f/2.8 is $3650.

[shanghaishah]

If you need zoom, the Sigma 12-24 would be the way to go IMHO. You'd be hard pressed to justify the extra $500 between the Sigma and Nikkor for the performance differance - unless $$ is no object . Suggest doing a search at the DPreview forum - plenty of dicussions and plenty of side by side picture comparison between the two.

- the Sigma is FF allowing you to use it for digital and film
- performance compared to the Nikkor : you decide after reading the reviews and comparing the pictures
- you can't use front filters, true, but it has a built in hood ( tiny ) and comes with a velt lined secondary hood and cap that you put on when you're done shooting - I don't see anyone using this lens as their walk-around lens.
- I've had one for over a month and I've used in indoors in low light and outdoors ( real estate, lanscape and architecture )

I'm converting to Primes, but this one ultra wide zoom is a keeper.

Hope this helps.

Shah

[Niccon]

Originally Posted by espn Nikon list price for the Nikkor 14 f/2.8 is $3650.

Wow, at that price I think only one option left for me now. Sigma seems to be the most appropriate since most users claimed that :

performance differences isnt a lot
less distortion
usable for both ff & dx
cheaper
good built

Still I am more keen to the nikon dx because of filter usage. I think the best is to handle/use both lens physically to compare the differences. Wondering will anyone willing to lend the lens for testing?