Nikon versus Third Party Wide Angle Lens Test

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

For some time now I have wanting to find a small 17-18mm wide angle lens for my Nikon D800E which can take filters. The Nikon 16-35mm I have is a very good lens but it is large and heavy and yes before some one says “get a Zeiss 18mm F.3.5 stupid” this is what I did. I bought a selection of cheap lenses on EBay to do a comparison test.

All images where manual focus using live view and with mirror up and on a tripod.

The raw test images which you can download from the link below go as.

https://www.hightail.com/download/ZUczbUpWaTFEa1ZvZE1UQw

Nikon AF 16-35mm lens @17mm

No2, F8.0
No3, F11.0
No4, F16.0

Tamron SP 17mm F3.5 151B new version lens

No5, F8.0
No6, F11.0
No7, F16.0

Tamron SP 17mm F3.5 51B old version Lens

No9,  F8.0
No10 F11.0
No11, F16.0

Sigma AF 18mm F3.5 lens

No12, F8.0
No13, F11.0
No15, F16.0

Tokina SL 17mm F3.5 lens

No15, F8.0
No16, F11.0
No17, F16.0

What the test revealed is not what I expected. So enjoy.

Cheers

Simon

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What the test revealed is not what I expected...

Any chance you might share your unexpected findings, without us having to download those huge files?

[Fish_Shooter]

There are also three discontinued Nikon 18mm lenses, two manual (f/4 and 3.5) and one auto focus. May be better to try than 3rd party?

[LesPalenik]

Any chance you might share your unexpected findings, without us having to download those huge files?

That was also my reaction. How about giving us a quick summary?

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

I did think about getting a Nikon 18mm lens but they are still expensive and actually hard to find on EBay.

In summery about the lens test it was the Sigma 18mm F3.5 lens I bought was the best lens over all with the Nikon 16-35mm second.

This is based only on the far corners of the frames.

It was the cheapest of all the lenses I bought and all so it has the least amount of elements of the lot. I think what determines the quality of these types of lenses is the size of the rear element. The bigger the size the better it is in the corners.

Cheers

Simon

[JohnBrew]

Thank you for your work, Simon. Nice job. You said you bought the Zeiss but didn't test it against the others?

[HarperPhotos]

Hi John,

No I don’t have a Zeiss 18mm F3.5 lens. I've read a lot of reviews about the Zeiss and there seems to be a lot of different opinions about it so I don’t what to spent close to two grand NZ on a untried lens. Unfortunately none of the camera stores here in Auckland have one to try out.

Cheers

Simon

[Telecaster]

I find my Y/C mount Zeiss 18/4 performs pretty darn good on the Sony A7r when stopped down to f/11 (16:9 crop) or f/16 (the full 3:2 frame). I don't see that well with ultra-wide lenses so I've rarely used this combo "in anger," but it's nice to have it available just in case.

-Dave-

[HarperPhotos]

Hello

If any one in Lulu land has a Zeiss 18mm F3.5 preferable on a Nikon D800 and would do a test similar to mine and then posted some raw images that would be great.

Cheers

Simon

[Rob Reiter]

It's a little wider than you may be looking for, but I love my 14mm Rokinon (Samyang). Even though it is manual focus, it talks to the confirmation chip in the D800. I've made 40"x60" prints from this that are stunning. Expect to pay $350-$400.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Rob,

I have read glowing reviews about the Samyang 14mm lens but it can’t take filters easily.

The Sigma 18mm F3.5 I bought seems to be amazing and compact.

I want to use it primarily in landscapes with water so I want to be able to attach a 6 stop or 10 stop ND filter. I have tried those variable ND filters but they a rubbish.

Cheers

Simon

[Justinr]

A small point but an important one to me is that the hoods of Sigma lenses actually stay on once clicked into place, likewise the lens cap. Alas, the same cannot be said of Nikon.

[David Anderson]

A small point but an important one to me is that the hoods of Sigma lenses actually stay on once clicked into place, likewise the lens cap. Alas, the same cannot be said of Nikon.

Not wrong.
I changed over to screw in rubber B&W's and haven't looked back.
They're ugly, but stay on.

Anyway, thanks for making the raw files available - I'll be having a close look.

[stamper]

What about the sigma 10-20 which is a cropped frame lens? It would be 15-30 on a full frame. It is a good performer on a D300 Nikon camera with B&W 10 stop ND filters.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What about the sigma 10-20 which is a cropped frame lens? It would be 15-30 on a full frame...

I am confused, Stamper. I always thought that a 10-22 cropped-sensor lens would only be equivalent to 15-30 in full-frame terms, i.e., it could never be 15-30 on a full frame. And I always thought that a 10-22 lens (or any other focal length, fixed or zoom, for that matter) would always be 10-22 on a 35mm full-frame, medium format, large format, or any other format under the sun. Except, when you put it there, its inherent smaller image circle would not be able to cover the whole, say, 35mm format. No?

[PeterAit]

Hello,

I did think about getting a Nikon 18mm lens but they are still expensive and actually hard to find on EBay.

In summery about the lens test it was the Sigma 18mm F3.5 lens I bought was the best lens over all with the Nikon 16-35mm second.

This is based only on the far corners of the frames.

It was the cheapest of all the lenses I bought and all so it has the least amount of elements of the lot. I think what determines the quality of these types of lenses is the size of the rear element. The bigger the size the better it is in the corners.

Why would you rate a lens based on the corners? That's the least important part of an image. It's nice if the corners are sharp, but I think that the center sharpness, chromatic aberration, and optical distortion are a lot more important.

[Telecaster]

Ah, another foray into the sinkhole of describing lens coverage in terms of focal length across multiple formats. I'd personally like to bludgeon the schweinehund who first responded to "We should use horizontal or diagonal degrees for this" with "Nah, I propose 'equivalent focal length' instead!"

-Dave-

[stamper]

I am confused, Stamper. I always thought that a 10-22 cropped-sensor lens would only be equivalent to 15-30 in full-frame terms, i.e., it could never be 15-30 on a full frame. And I always thought that a 10-22 lens (or any other focal length, fixed or zoom, for that matter) would always be 10-22 on a 35mm full-frame, medium format, large format, or any other format under the sun. Except, when you put it there, its inherent smaller image circle would not be able to cover the whole, say, 35mm format. No?

Slobodan you certainly are confused. I didn't mention a 10-22 lens. It was a 10-20 lens. Which one are you referring to? The only thing you got right was that I didn't state the word equivalent. I think that any experienced member would have got the gist of my statement but not your confusion over the lenses focal length. I apologise for my omission.

[Justinr]

Not wrong.
I changed over to screw in rubber B&W's and haven't looked back.
They're ugly, but stay on.

Anyway, thanks for making the raw files available - I'll be having a close look.

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into those. I've lost three hoods in the past six months and it would probably have been more if I'd bothered replacing them.

[MrSmith]

"That's the least important part of an image"
Maybe for portraits shot wide open but for still life/architecture/commercial work the corners are very important, without them a lens isn't much use to me.
 And as this is a 'landscape' forum (with a lot of other kinds of photographer posting) I would still say corners are important. For me they are more important than front to back image sharpness when shooting landscapes.