14mm vs 17mm wide angle

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm trying to buy a wide angle zoom for my Nikon N65 (and be shared with digital, but I won't talk further about that here). I'm spoilt for choice. There are so many good wide zooms available for F-mount that used to cost kilobucks but are now in the sub-$500 range. I've narrowed it down to two styles of zoom: Ones where the wide side starts at 17mm, but they're "lightweight" (i.e. 600g) and small, and ones where the wide side starts at 14mm but they're big and heavy (i.e. 1000g) and a bit more expensive (+$150). Poring over reviews, it seems that quality will be equivalent, with perhaps some small advantage to the 17mm. I'm leaning towards getting it.

My question is this: the FOV difference between 14mm and 17mm is not insignificant. It's a ~113 deg horizontal at 14mm vs ~103 deg at 17mm. It's easy to visualize that with lots of viewers online, but what I am having trouble with is telling if this meaningful for photographic compositions. For folks who have used both super ultrawide lenses, like 14mm and just regular ultrawide, like 17mm, do you feel like the extra 10 degrees opens up composition options and makes things more dramatic? Or is it mostly something that is incremental and can be worked around. Of course I'd rather have the smaller, cheaper, lighter, sharper lens if I can but I already have a 24mm and it's tempting to wonder if 14mm is truly distinct from it and worth carrying, while 17mm is "close enough" and not worth buying a new lens for at all.

What do you guys think?

 

[MFstooges]

On the wider end, the small focal length increment makes a lot of difference vs tele lens but obviously you can see these from sample comparison. Of course the wider lens will give more dramatic image but whether it will gives you benefit or not depends on your interest and style.

 

[M-88]

When I wanted to get an ultrawide, Iens, I opted for 19-35 mm zoom and found the wider end too wide for my subject of photography (which includes landscapes, by the way). I used 28-35 mm range more often to isolate the subject and get rid of distortion, rather than 19-24 mm range, so in the end I sold that lens.

What I'm trying to say here is: if you have ever used an ultrawide lens, that might give you a far better hint than anyone else's advise. The difference between 24mm and 20mm is significant. So is the difference between 20 and 17mm. And so is between 17 and 14. But unless you need that kind of angle of view, you may find yourself cropping the distracting/redundant elements from images, more often than not. Plus the distortion doesn't really go away so you'll need to use it to your advantage.

 

[xkaes]

If you like 24mm, you'll probably like 17mm -- but wider than that? Maybe, but maybe not. You could try a 17mm (or a 17-35mm) and see if you like -- and if you want more, just trade it in for something wider.

One thing I have discovered is that there are plenty of people that buy super-wide-angle zooms (or super-wide-angle primes), and later find that they never use them. And if you're not in a rush, you can find then -- barely used -- for incredible prices. I've ended up with a 17-35mm, 15-30mm, and a 12-24mm -- all like new, in the original boxes with cases, etc. -- each for under $100. I'm still in shock.

And keep in mind that the wider you get the more flare/glare you will have to deal with -- and distortion (as has been mentioned).

 

[GregY]

If i wanted/needed an ultra wide, i'd opt for a prime..... much smaller & lighter. In 35mm 20/21 is wide enough for my use. The Nikkor 18mm is also a stellar lens but bigger...and goes for $250-400 on the bay.

 

[Nitroplait]

If 24mm is your point of reference, you will most likely find 17mm fairly challenging to master effectively, and 14mm near impossible. That unless you have a very specific vision of how to utilize such a wide lens.
Even a 20mm lens is not an easy focal length to utilize without a good deal of practice. And the difference between 20mm vs 24mm feels more significant than the difference between 50 and 35 IMO.
In other words; if you are not sure you need 14mm, then you don’t!

 

[koraks]

Other than field of view, I'd focus (heh) also on distortion, esp. barrel and combinations of barrel + pincushion (wavy horizons etc.). It can (does) get pretty bad especially with the more compact/lightweight lenses and with film, there's little you can do about it except correct it digitally in post.

I don't have sufficient experience with 14mm on full frame 35mm to comment on the field of view comparison, other than that I find 17mm already pretty darn wide and in quite a few situations not so useful anymore because it's just too wide already.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well folks I stumbled on an eBay listing for a lens that was on my radar, the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 for which the seller randomly decided to throw in a free FTZ adapter without increasing the cost of the lens. So that kinda blew up my whole carefully considered calculus, since I can sell that FTZ for half the price of the lens itself.... Plus I get to sidestep my original conundum of if it was worth paying more for a bigger FoV, as I now get to pay less for a bigger FoV.

 

[Steven Lee]

This is subjective of course, but I rarely (never?) see interesting images made with wide angle lenses. Mentally going through the list of my favorite photographers and their works, all that fits into the 28-85mm range. Ultra wide or long images either suck, or follow the small number of "templates" which gets old quick. I guess I am saying that both FOVs are going to be hard to make good images with. The 17mm will be incredibly hard to work with, and the 14mm will be impossible.

 

[reddesert]

I used to be interested in getting/using very wide angle lenses to encompass more in the image. However, the widest lens I ever got was an 18mm, and I didn't find as much use for it as I thought. I find that (for me) ultrawide lenses don't replicate our wide perception of a scene very well; in a landscape type of application, they mostly tend to make everything look small. I think they work better if you have a very strong foreground, or need to photograph in a cramped space.

Additionally, the rectilinear perspective, while technically "correct", produces perspective that can be unpleasing at the edges, like the egg-shaped heads of people at the edges of a very wide-angle photograph of a group. The lens isn't doing anything "wrong," it just renders on film different to our mental perceptions. I also have a swing-lens panoramic camera, and while those are famous for distorting straight lines into curved, in terms of relative sizes of objects at center and edge they're actually more natural.

I can come up with some niche cases where an ultrawide lens is useful, like close up action shots (some skateboarding/trick photographers use this), or say you want to photograph building facades from the street without using a view camera with rise: use a wide angle with the camera leveled and crop off the bottom 1/3 of the image.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

24 seems to distort a lot more than 28mm

 

[xkaes]

Well folks I stumbled on an eBay listing for a lens that was on my radar, the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8

I'm sure you'll love that lens. Mine is a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5/4.5. It is a large lens, so I assume yours is as well -- but it covers all you could want wide-anglewise -- in one lens. As for distortion being a problem, that's only relevant for some subjects. Ansel Adams' "advice" for wide lenses was to place a significant object in the foreground (as reddesert alluded to) -- and keep the camera as level as possible. Happy shooting.

 

[koraks]

I think they work better if you have a very strong foreground

That's the compositional advantage of ultrawide lenses. It allows you to rearrange near and far objects in such a way that they start making sense in relation to each other in a new way.

 

[MattKing]

This is out of bounds for this sub-forum, but if the digital companion to your full frame film camera has a smaller than full frame sensor, the 14mm end of the zoom is probably much more usable on that digital companion than on the film body.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm trying to buy a wide angle zoom for my Nikon N65 (and be shared with digital, but I won't talk further about that here). I'm spoilt for choice. There are so many good wide zooms available for F-mount that used to cost kilobucks but are now in the sub-$500 range. I've narrowed it down to two styles of zoom: Ones where the wide side starts at 17mm, but they're "lightweight" (i.e. 600g) and small, and ones where the wide side starts at 14mm but they're big and heavy (i.e. 1000g) and a bit more expensive (+$150). Poring over reviews, it seems that quality will be equivalent, with perhaps some small advantage to the 17mm. I'm leaning towards getting it.

My question is this: the FOV difference between 14mm and 17mm is not insignificant. It's a ~113 deg horizontal at 14mm vs ~103 deg at 17mm. It's easy to visualize that with lots of viewers online, but what I am having trouble with is telling if this meaningful for photographic compositions. For folks who have used both super ultrawide lenses, like 14mm and just regular ultrawide, like 17mm, do you feel like the extra 10 degrees opens up composition options and makes things more dramatic? Or is it mostly something that is incremental and can be worked around. Of course I'd rather have the smaller, cheaper, lighter, sharper lens if I can but I already have a 24mm and it's tempting to wonder if 14mm is truly distinct from it and worth carrying, while 17mm is "close enough" and not worth buying a new lens for at all.

What do you guys think?

hard to tell. I never had or felt the need for a lens that wide. My widest is the AF Nikon 20mm f/2.8D, with which I'm having difficulties taking a photograph without my feet in it. I'd be inteested to see some examples after you make your choice!

 

[xkaes]

This is out of bounds for this sub-forum, but if the digital companion to your full frame film camera has a smaller than full frame sensor, the 14mm end of the zoom is probably much more usable on that digital companion than on the film body.

Or a Pen F.

 

[xkaes]

 

[ic-racer]

I like wide angle lenses, but I rented the Nikkor 14mm about ten years ago and found it to be too wide for my liking, so I never bought one.

 

[btaylor]

I have a 17mm Tamron prime for my OM1. I only find it useful (and it’s the reason I bought it) for interior shots of rental properties. For that purpose it works wonderfully but not for much else. I especially do not care for super wides in landscape photography. There are few occasions I would use my 21mm, 24mm is usually my limit for things to look somewhat normal, but that’s just how I see things.
Let us know what you think of that 15mm wide end.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

hard to tell. I never had or felt the need for a lens that wide. My widest is the AF Nikon 20mm f/2.8D, with which I'm having difficulties taking a photograph without my feet in it. I'd be inteested to see some examples after you make your choice!

I use both the 14 and the 17-35 Nikon lenses on my F5. They are magnificent lenses, but each lens will likely be heavier than your N65 (aka F65)! The ultra-wides do have a learning curve, but they repay your efforts with images you would be unable to capture otherwise. Then there is a WIDE panoramic (overlapping frame contents by 20% to allow exact registration) which could be you rotating your camera around a full 360° and make a wall-width print (or even a print to wrap around an entire room--with the door(s) closed to complete the view).
I would recommend the 17-35 (NOT the 16-35) Nikkor to permit versatile framing. Every other lens I have is a prime, but the 17-35 just works for me. Keep shooting!

 

[benveniste]

My question is this: the FOV difference between 14mm and 17mm is not insignificant. It's a ~113 deg horizontal at 14mm vs ~103 deg at 17mm. It's easy to visualize that with lots of viewers online, but what I am having trouble with is telling if this meaningful for photographic compositions. For folks who have used both super ultrawide lenses, like 14mm and just regular ultrawide, like 17mm, do you feel like the extra 10 degrees opens up composition options and makes things more dramatic? Or is it mostly something that is incremental and can be worked around. Of course I'd rather have the smaller, cheaper, lighter, sharper lens if I can but I already have a 24mm and it's tempting to wonder if 14mm is truly distinct from it and worth carrying, while 17mm is "close enough" and not worth buying a new lens for at all.

I own both a 14-24mm and 17-35mm zooms, and previously owned a full-frame Sigma 12-24mm. Yes, 14mm does allow some shots which just aren't possible at 17mm, but the keyword here is "some." I found it took a lot more effort and composition time to make effective use of those wider focal lengths -- otherwise I ended up with either perspective "distortion" at the edges or a boring shot with a bunch of empty space in the foreground.

So "worth carrying?" For me at least, the answer is "only for a planned shoot." For tourist or freestyle shooting, I'm far more likely to leave the 14-24mm at home and pack either the 17-35mm or an 18mm prime.

 

[Axelwik]

I've had a 15mm Aspherical Voigtlander Heliar lens for my Leica M for about 5 years and use it a lot, especially for travel photography. But you generally have to get really, really close to your subjects. Great lens.

 

[xkaes]

Some people appreciate fisheyes, and some people don't.

Some people appreciate ULTRA-wides, and some people don't.

Unlike other lenses, they both force you to put a lot more thought into your pictures -- to avoid creating CRAP.

At least that's true for me -- but it can pay off, for sure. In some ways, it's like playing the lottery -- which I don't do.

 

[Axelwik]

Some recent photos I took with my 15mm. You have to get close, like right in the middle of things. Pays off for me.
img20240530_14531904 (1) by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
img20240530_14032281 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr

 

[Axelwik]

Very useful lens for my purposes. A few more:
Germany-Switzerland 2019-257 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
Germany-Switzerland 2019-367 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
Germany-Switzerland 2019-255 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
Germany-Switzerland 2019-269 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr