Looking at 24mm lenses

I am getting a bit more into landscape photography and am considering spending a bit more for a better 24mm lens. I did have the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens, and it was really good, but it took a fall and I was unable to repair it. So I replaced it with the Nikon 24mm f2.8 and the Nikon 50mm f1.8. They are both okay, but their cheap price is apparent in the images I am getting. So I am considering starting with trying to get a better 24mm, as that is the lens I use the most for landscapes. Looking at the Sigma ART 24mm f1.4, it appears to get good reviews. Would it be a good choice? I wouldn't be opposed to getting a wide angle zoom lens, but my instincts are telling me that it will not likely be quite as good as a similar level prime in the same general price range. Is this a valid assumption? I also do not want it to be too large or heavy. Lastly, I may also use the lens for the occasional night sky/milky way photos. My budget would be in the $1200 CDN or less range. Give me some ideas to check out.

24mm is nice.

dont get mad at me but also consider the nikon 20mm 1.8 , not so expensive, very good optically, works nice for astro .... not heavy ....
except for being 20mm it has most of the things you are looking after....

i like it a lot.....

https://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-20mm-f1 ... -n-review/

Thanks Andre, At $999 in Canada, the 20mm f1.8 is definitely worth considering. But, is it going to be as sharp as the Sigma 24 ART?

never used the sigma, but the nikon 20mm is very sharp. cant get much better then that ...

works better for astro then the sigmas as far as i have read from others....

sigma art series are fine.... as i have read but never used them

but the nikkor 20mm is an option to consider!!!!

regards

andre.

The Sigma Art wide primes are top to bottom best in class for AF lenses - the 24 litterally smokes the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 which is probably the single most overrated Nikon lens (along with the Nikon 35mm f/1.4).  You can't really go wrong there with the Sigma Art primes.  20mm is a completely different beast from 24mm - it is not just a little wider, it's dramatically wider.  Another option, if you don't need AF is the Zeiss 25mm f/2.  You don't need to get the new Milvus as it is optically the same as the older Z.F2 lens - an exceptional lens that you might be able to find for a god price on the sued market.  Stay far far away from the older Sigma 20mm f/1.8 non Srt lens - it is catastrophically bad and made before Sigma reinvented itself.

By the way, my newsletter keeps a running tally of the very best lenses for Canon, Nikon and Sony at all categories of lenses.  Just g ot my website, click on newsletter and then select the most current one.

Thanks EJ. I know I like a 24mm and it suits most of what I do landscape wise, so I am reluctant to go wider, without being able to use it for a few weeks or so. For just general use; i.e. if you "only" could have one wide angle lens, would you chose the 20mm or the 24mm? Also, is the Nikon 20mm as sharp as the Sigma 24mm ART? Lastly, are those lenses you are mentioning, in the same price range as the Sigma's?

Thanks as well Andre. Keep in mind that astro would be at most 5% of my landscape work, and landscape is probably about 10-15% of my birds and macro work.

If I could only have one lens it would probably be the 24 but I am very glad I don't have to make that choice. No the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 is a high end consumer grade lens, a very good lens but not exceptional, very economical for what you get though. The Sigma is a full on professional build and image quality lens. Too bad there isn't a really good 16-35mm lens for Nikon - that's what I'd get which is why I traded all of my wide primes for a single 16-35 f/2.8 G-Master lens on my Sony system - absolutely mind blowingly great lens but there is nothing that touches it for Nikon currently.

Is there anything in 16-35 that would be "decent" on a Nikon? Or is the Sigma 24 ART going to blow them all away in that price range?

Here in Canada the Sigma 24 f1.4 ART is a bit cheaper than the Nikon 20mm f1.8. So I guess you could say that it [font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif]is also very economical for what you get. While I would love to be able to have a 16-35, it is looking like the Sigma ART is going to be the best I can get for what I can afford. Also, it will offer me a 24mm or 35mm, as I can also use it on my D500. Perhaps a minor pain to switch bodies, but should perform well on both.[/font]

On another subject, how the heck do I get rid of the stuff in the brackets in this post. I have tried everything I can think of, including retyping the whole thing, and they keep showing up in there??

There's the Nikon 16-35 f/4 but it isn't in the same league as any of the lenses we are talking about.
What body are you using for Full Frame?

I reluctantly sold my D800 and am now using a D600, in which Nikon replaced the shutter mechanism. My hopes are that once everyone has scooped up the D850's, I can sell this D600 and get a D810 for a price I can afford. To fund the lens, I am seriously considering selling my 500 f4 VR to fund a Nikon 200-500 VR, Sigma 180 OS Macro and Sigma 24mm ART. My biggest concern is the AF performance of the 200-500, but since I do very little BIF shooting, it may not be a big deal for me. I know three people now that have this lens (all very good photographers) so I have had lots of time to play with it. It seems to be every bit as sharp as my 500 VR and offers me a good zoom range which I would love for bird setups where you have a huge variety of sizes coming in. Also, at 65 now, I would welcome the smaller size and weight.  I haven't completely decided to do it yet, but I am very close.

The Nikon 16-35 f4 is too expensive for me, and I would prefer the better quality of the Sigma prime over the convenience of a lower quality zoom. For the amount of landscape work I would be doing, I feel I can be happy with a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm.

OK, the reason I asked is to see if you would even see the difference and while you might not on a D600, if your aspirations are to eventually get into high megapixel imaging then you definitely should stick with premium optics lenses.

Tim, also remember that those 16/35 f2.8 are huge and heavy.

Tim

I am replacing a 17-35 for the same reason. What has caught my eye so far is the Tokina 16-28 , Tamron 15-30 and the Sigma 24-35. I have tested both the Tokina and the Sigma and found both more than adequate for my output (12x18prints). The Sigma is clearly sharper for pixel peeping but also limited in range. The Tamron reputation suggests it will more closely resemble the Sigma in sharpness. The Tokina at $600 is clearly the bargain.

Tim

Thanks for the further suggestions guys I had previously looked at the Tamron 15-30 as it is the little sister to the Tamron 24-70 that I lost due to damage. My two concerns for it is that it is about $400 more here in Canada over the Sigma 24 ART, and I have trouble believing than any zoom is going to be as sharp as a high quality prime. Remember, I am only considering this upgrade because I want better performance than my Nikon 24 f2.8. I am not sure a zoom would be noticeably that much better, but I am pretty confident the Sigma ART will be. I wish there was a way here to take them all out for a good workout to test for myself. At this point I am pretty much sold on the Sigma 24 ART, because from all the reviews (including EJ's) it appears to be the best in its class for Nikon.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Thanks for the further suggestions guys I had previously looked at the Tamron 15-30 as it is the little sister to the Tamron 24-70 that I lost due to damage. My two concerns for it is that it is about $400 more here in Canada over the Sigma 24 ART, and I have trouble believing than any zoom is going to be as sharp as a high quality prime. Remember, I am only considering this upgrade because I want better performance than my Nikon 24 f2.8. I am not sure a zoom would be noticeably that much better, but I am pretty confident the Sigma ART will be. I wish there was a way here to take them all out for a good workout to test for myself. At this point I am pretty much sold on the Sigma 24 ART, because from all the reviews (including EJ's) it appears to be the best in its class for Nikon.

I have the 24mm Sigma ART 1.4 lens, and unlike yourself, I bought it with astro photography in mind almost exclusively (Aurora, Milky Way, etc.) I can stop it down to F2 or 2.8 and get more towards the "sweet spot", so I love it. I use it on a full frame camera too. Build quality and IQ are just plain superior - it's amazing how they can offer it so cheap in my opinion. Can't go wrong Tim! 

Thanks Mark. Which body are you using it on?

Tim Zurowski wrote:Thanks Mark. Which body are you using it on?

My old trusty (take from my cold, dead hands!) (until I get that darn D850!) D3S. 

+1 on the Sigma Art 24mm. I had the Canon. I don't think it's just sharper; I think it is also more contrasty, although I never compared them together at the same time on the same subject. 

Found one used for about $450, which I thought was a pretty good deal. 

TigTillinghast wrote:+1 on the Sigma Art 24mm. I had the Canon. I don't think it's just sharper; I think it is also more contrasty, although I never compared them together at the same time on the same subject. 

Found one used for about $450, which I thought was a pretty good deal. 

Wow!  $450 is a great deal. Wish I could find one used for that. Here in Canada it is $1099 on sale now for $979. Wanna sell it 

According to Roger Cicala of lensrentals.com the best 24mm f1.4 lens is a 35mm f1.4 and a few steps back. He makes this statement due to the large curvature of field of the 24mm focal length, resulting in greater decreased sharpness at edges and corners.
The 24mm f1.4 is of advantage for shallow depth of field and night sky photography where shooting at wide apertures is an advantage, but for landscapes where you stop down a lot, a smaller aperture 24mm lens is a better value.