> Here is the difference between a Nikkor 14/2.8 full frame and the > Pentax DA 14/2.8: > > Nikon > street price: $1399.00 > weight: 23.6 oz > size: 3.8 X 3.4 > > Pentax > Street price: $700.00 > weight: 14.8 oz > size: 3.3 X 2.7
As I've said, I bought a used Sigma 14/3.5 (for $500-ish) instead of the Nikkor, and I regret it. If I had the money back, though, I wouldn't buy the 14mm Nikkor. I'd buy the 12-24/4 Nikkor, which is an APS-format lens. Since I never needed a 14mm lens back when my 20mm lens gave me that FOV, I'd have bought a $700 Nikon APS-sized 14mm lens if they made one despite its lack of 35mm coverage. The great big bulbous front element of a 14mm 35mm-format lens is very very hard to protect from light coming in at bad angles, giving you nasty ghosting and flare. It's very hard to protect from anything more substantial than light coming in at any angle, 'cause you can't put a skylight filter on it. From what I've heard, the older 15mm lenses are worse than the current 14s in these respects. The 12-24 has a wider angle of view, has a mildly useful lens shade, and takes front filters. This is a convincing argument for using an APS-format lens if your goal is to have an ultra-wide angle of view on an APS-format DSLR. (size is hard to compare, since the 12-24 is a stop slower, but also a zoom. certainly the balance of the 12-24 is different than the very front-heavy 14) The 14mm Nikkor is not a bad performer on the 2.77mp D1H (although the Pentax might be better, but there's no way to really compare them unless you're Cotty and can kick-fit them both onto a Canon body) I've heard that it doesn't fare so well on Nikon's 5 and 6mp DSLRs, and that the corners are soft at wider apertures on film. OTOH the FOV on film is stunning (whereas the 12-24 starts to vignette at 16-18mm on film), and it's a great improvement on earlier ultra-wides. DJE
