Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Input on Wide-Angle Lens

Artful Dodger

Artful Dodger

macrumors 68020
Original poster
May 28, 2004
2,357
1
In a false sense of reality...My Mind!
Hello to all.
I'm looking at buying a wide-angle lens in the next week or so and have it narrowed down to two models. I have a Nikon D90 and have given my D50 to my girlfriend along with a few lenses and makes a nice backup system not to mention we can shoot together and exchange lenses as well.

Originally I was going to purchase the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ultra wide-angle lens but this past week I've been leaning more towards the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 ultra wide-angle lens instead. Both have really great reviews and photos out there however most are just reviews and then like most things, the longevity and how the lenses have performed in the real world are in short supply. Last, is having the standard on Nikkor/Canon lenses, the lens gasket to help keep dust out, a huge advantage or very little on most models? I understand the beach and dessert is a no brainer and the weather seal would be handy which is one reason why I've stayed with Nikkor thus far but input is always welcome.

With that said who here either owns, rents or uses either lens on a regular basis and what is your like dislike of the lens? I would also like to ask others that don't use Nikon for feedback on wide-angle information because wide is wide to me no matter what brand folks use :D

My shooting in mind consists of architecture, landscape, various works of art and some creative fine art photos for print on canvas or Bristol board.

I should list a few of the current lenses I have for coverage info:
Nikkor 16-85mm (D90)
Nikkor 70-300mm (D90)
Nikkor 50mm (D50 & D90)
Nikkor 18-55mm (D50 kit lens)
Nikkor 18-200mm (D50)

I don't mind the overlapping of lenses for coverage sake and to be honest both wide-angle lenses have been close on sharpness at just about every site I can compare them at. Most images aren't that big to compare photos like we would at home/work from the original but it's a start. This also means all the other fun issues that accompany ultra wide-angle lenses as well, you know, the stuff that others have reported or have left out because of personal bias or not.

Thanks and sorry for the long post however I hope it helps others down the road :)
 
Well, I got a Sigma 12-24 for full frame, so I think the new 8-16 DC makes crop something that can be considered.
 
I suggest you take Tokina's 12-24 mm into consideration: it has a much wider focal length range than the 11-16 mm. It is superior in build quality and optics to the Nikkor. The 11-16 mm is supposed to be better, but I'd rather have a wider focal length range.
 
If you are considering ever shooting indoors with this lens, get the f2.8 11-16 (which I use on my D90). If I didn't do so often, I would have got the Tokina 12-24 (or Nikon's version 2nd hand).
 
I've been shooting with the Nikkor 10-24mm for the past month. It's a really great lens. I have no regrets.
 
tekmoe said:
I've been shooting with the Nikkor 10-24mm for the past month. It's a really great lens. I have no regrets.
Click to expand...

It's really odd, I was going to get the Tokina 11-16 this past Friday and some how/way I've missed looking at the Nikkor 10-24 for quite some time which is the odd part because it hasn't been listed under my searches :rolleyes: Also the local shop hasn't carried it as of late because I've been in there looking around for a few to compare.
I am now checking out the Sigma 8-16mm which seems really interesting yet it could be faster and thus might be a deal breaker in the end.

Glad you are happy with your lens and feel free to post any samples if you so desire.
 
Really depends on what you have envisioned to use it for. Landscapes? Indoor tight spaces? Also I would ask, do you own/use a tripod.

8-16mm on DX is extraordinarily wide, and honestly getting into specialty lens territory, kind of like a macro or tilt-shift lens. It is not a trivial task to compose a frame with that kind of width (I believe 8mm is something around 120 degrees horizontal FOV).

The 11-16 has a very limited zoom range, it's almost more like a prime than a zoom. It can be useful if you really need that f2.8 but if you're shooting landscapes, the extra speed is not going to do you any good.

Lastly consider having some overlap between your lenses. If you are using a 16-85 and an 11-16, there is no overlap on the wide end. So if you have the 16-86 on and want a little wider than 16, you'll have to change lenses. Same goes for the 11-16: you will be limited to taking superwides only with that lens. Something with a little more range, however, like the 10-24, you will have that ultrawide capability but can still get into more conventional territory by being able to go to 24mm without having to swap lenses. If you tend to shoot a lot in that "crossover zone", a little overlap is a good thing otherwise you'll be switching lenses constantly.

I'd recommend the 10-24 if only because I have the 12-24 which I use for landscapes and it's awesome. The 10-24 gives a little extra reach and costs less. If you are looking to take landscapes, I'd highly recommend this lens.

Re: the rubber gasket- don't look too much into it. It's nice to have but considering your D90/D50 are not weather sealed, the protected lens isn't doing you that much good. I am not 100% sure but I also heard that unless your camera body also had the mount ring gasket (D200/300 models and up) then the lens gasket wasn't sealing anything. It needs the accompanying lens mount gasket for the protection. Suffice it to say, however, that I have taken my 12-24 and D80 into many outdoor situations (sandy beaches included) and have never had a problem.

Ruahrc
 
Nikkor DX - Wide Angle Zoom

My recommendation is to take a very careful side by side look at the Nikkor 10-24mm and 12-24mm DX lenses. Both externally for construction differences and on the camera for handling and image quality.

My personal choice is the 12-24mm Nikkor DX, it has been my favorite wide angle lens for over 6 years now and I have used it on everything from the D40 to the D2x.

Third party lenses just don't feel right in my hands and I think you have to be comfortable with your camera to get good use out of it.

George
 
I'll put in a vote for the Tokina 12-24 f/4.0. It's a great lens, and built like a tank. The focal length range is very useful, and for the money it's a bargain compared to the Nikkor 12-24. The original version is screw drive, but that's not an issue since it focuses very fast. The version II has a built-in motor, but I haven't used one. For the difference in the price, I'd get the original classic Tokina without hesitation.

Just my $0.02 worth. ;)
 
Artful Dodger said:
I am now checking out the Sigma 8-16mm which seems really interesting yet it could be faster and thus might be a deal breaker in the end.
Click to expand...
8-10 mm is really, really wide. At these focal lengths it's difficult to compose a photo because you almost certainly have stuff in there you don't want in there.

Also, I think you're overemphasizing the need for a fast lens: you're looking at ultra-wide angle lenses and not tele lenses. If you're working indoors, you'll probably do architectural shots. (Ultra-wide angle lenses are not well-suited to take pictures of people, you get a lot of distortion at the edges -- an effect that can be funny, but wears off quickly.)
georgemann said:
Third party lenses just don't feel right in my hands and I think you have to be comfortable with your camera to get good use out of it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've never used Tokina lenses: their build quality is much closer to Nikon pro glass and a joy to use. My 12-24 mm Tokina feels great in my hands. :) The focal length range is quite useful and you can even use it indoors for people if you keep on reminding yourself to forgo anything between 12 and 16/17 mm. Especially women get cranky when you transform their faces into pancakes ;)
 
georgemann said:
Third party lenses just don't feel right in my hands and I think you have to be comfortable with your camera to get good use out of it.
Click to expand...

While this may be true in some cases, it needs to be qualified. There's no doubt that the Tokina 12-24 has better build quality than either Nikon choice. It has a full metal barrel whereas the Nikons are plastic. Also, many Zeiss lenses (third party, remember) make Nikon lenses feel like toys. A third party lens requires no better or worse knowledge of your camera than a "first party" lens for optimum performance.

Ruahrc
 
georgemann said:
Third party lenses just don't feel right in my hands and I think you have to be comfortable with your camera to get good use out of it.

George
Click to expand...

Cheaply constructed, plastic-y, sloppy lenses with "play" in them don't feel right in my hands--which is one reason why I like the Tokina wide angles. And, for you Nikon shooters, Tokina lenses focus and zoom the same way Nikkor lenses do (opposite direction from Canon.) I read that the company was originally founded by former Nikon engineers--I don't have verification of this, but it would explain that similar DNA "feeling."
 
OreoCookie said:
8-10 mm is really, really wide. At these focal lengths it's difficult to compose a photo because you almost certainly have stuff in there you don't want in there.

Also, I think you're overemphasizing the need for a fast lens: you're looking at ultra-wide angle lenses and not tele lenses. If you're working indoors, you'll probably do architectural shots. (Ultra-wide angle lenses are not well-suited to take pictures of people, you get a lot of distortion at the edges -- an effect that can be funny, but wears off quickly.)
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm going to stay within the 10-24mm range as that should be more than enough for my needs.

pdxflint I can't believe my local shop doesn't carry Tokina as I called there and they won't even take in used Tokina lenses :rolleyes: I was thinking when looking at certain situations the where, when and why for my wide angle purchase but this makes it a tad more of a leap of faith for the final decision.
 
^^^^ Isn't that a kick ;) I just got the 16-85mm to photo the Tibetan Monks last week here in Buffalo/Niagara Falls and used the short/wide end and then changed over to my 18-200mm (forgot the 70-300mm @ home :rolleyes:) on the long end. Oh how I would have liked something like this last week for before dinner and just after with them…also fwiw I had lost my bookmarks due to the dreaded HDD failure and replacement in my MBP 5 days before that…sigh.
Thanks for the link as it will help in the future.
 
Artful Dodger said:
pdxflint I can't believe my local shop doesn't carry Tokina as I called there and they won't even take in used Tokina lenses :rolleyes: I was thinking when looking at certain situations the where, when and why for my wide angle purchase but this makes it a tad more of a leap of faith for the final decision.
Click to expand...

Well, there is certainly more than one place to buy photo gear...

Ruahrc said:
Laughably, here's what Nikonrumors is showing today...

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/07/05/tokina-at-x-16-28-f2-8-pro-fx-lens-f-mount-now-official.aspx

:)

Ruahrc
Click to expand...

Looks interesting expecially for full-frame. I've already got a 17-55f/2.8 for DX, so it would not bring me anything I don't already have, but depending on it's performance, and it's price... I could see it being something I'd consider if I make the move to FX. It's definitely a nice looking lens-- again, that Nikkor DNA I was talking about. ;)
 
pdxflint said:
Well, there is certainly more than one place to buy photo gear...
Click to expand...

Oh I know that it was just somewhat funny since they stock everything else. It's always nice to try it out and decide right there but I've been looking to order either from B&H or Adorama depending upon price and of course stock. Just to keep the thread in the same ballpark, A local fellow just got a new 25ft pocket trawler from Washington and is proud to show it off and not just from the outside. I'm hoping to get some wide shots from the inside while docked and from a quick ride. We don't have many like that around the area by the Erie Canal where I'm from so it would be a real treat.
 
Artful Dodger said:
Yeah I'm going to stay within the 10-24mm range as that shouldpdxflint I can't believe my local shop doesn't carry Tokina as I called there and they won't even take in used Tokina lenses :rolleyes: I was thinking when looking at certain situations the where, when and why for my wide angle purchase but this makes it a tad more of a leap of faith for the final decision.
Click to expand...
With Tokina lenses, it's not a leap of faith. Although I have noticed that they're harder to get in the US than in Europe. Makes them seem `exotic' and perhaps `not worth being in the store,' but in terms of quality, that couldn't be further from the truth. Older Tokina lenses are on par in terms of build quality with pro grade Nikon glass. I've once owned Tokina's 28-70 Pro SV which literally cost a fraction of what Nikon's own 28-70 would have cost at the time. The lens survived a crash with over 30 km/h on the pavement with only minor cosmetic blemishes. My body was killed, though.

If you have `trouble' selling your Tokina lens, there is always ebay. ;) All the buyer needs to do is read reviews like this one:
photozone on the 11-16 mm Tokina said:
The Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX is currently the best ultra-wide angle zoom lens for Canon EOS APS-C DSLRs. The resolution is impressively high throughout the zoom range (albeit a short one) and across the image field. Vignetting is really only a problem at 11mm @ f/2.8 but otherwise the issue is very well controlled. The level of distortions is comparatively low. Typical for most Tokina lenses it has one weakness: lateral CAs which are very high at all settings. The build quality is on a very high level and its a joy to handle the lens out there. All-in-all a very sound package especially when considering the quite affordable price (around 600EUR/US$).
Click to expand...
Compare that to the review of Nikon's 10-24 mm:
photozone on the 10-24 mm Nikkor said:
The Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24/3.5-4.5 is a welcome addition to the selection of ultra wide zoom lenses, a modern design with good build quality and fast sonic wave AF. It features impressive resolution figures at most focal lengths and a moderate level of vignetting and CAs. On the downside, barrel distortion is very high at 10 mm and the resolution at the extreme corners is poor wide open at 10 mm and recovers only partially stopped down. This leaves the impression that the zoom range was forced down to 10 mm.
Still a solid performance all in all. And for those looking for an extreme wide angle lens but hesitating to choose a third party option, there's another Nikon-made solution now, allthough unfortunately not a cheap one.
Click to expand...
The beauty is that while here in Germany, the Nikkor costs ~800 € while I can pick up a used 12-24 mm for ~310-350 € or 530 € new. Some people fear getting third-party products, but in many occasions, it's not really justified. There are damn good third-party lenses and there are mediocre third-party lenses.
 
pdxflint said:
Looks interesting expecially for full-frame. I've already got a 17-55f/2.8 for DX, so it would not bring me anything I don't already have, but depending on it's performance, and it's price... I could see it being something I'd consider if I make the move to FX. It's definitely a nice looking lens-- again, that Nikkor DNA I was talking about. ;)
Click to expand...

Not to hijack this thread, but while I love my Tokina 11-16 (and I think it totally beat Sigma to the punch to fill this gap), I think the newly announced 16-28 seems moronic. It doesn't have a filter thread (there goes sunsets, waterfalls, etc.), it's FL range is inside of what Nikon offers, and it's terribly priced ($1400). I mean, why wouldn't I get the 16-35 f4 (with VR!) for $300 less, or get lucky and find a 17-35 used in great shape for $500 less?

Tokina is a great company, but this seems like a weird business decision. If it were 2/3s the price of the best competitor, I'd get it. Maybe the IQ is nuts. Who knows.
 
I don't think the 16-28 was ever intended to be a landscape lens. f2.8 is not needed for landscapes and putting it in just adds weight and cost. This lens is more geared towards things like photojournalism where you might be shooting in tight spaces but need a wider aperture for lower light (indoors, etc). Therefore, lack of filter threads is not really an issue. I wouldn't say it's necessarily fair to compare it to the 16-35, which really is more of a landscape lens.

The better comparison is to the 14-24- which at $1800 retail is almost 33% more expensive. I guess it really depends on the IQ, although with the reputation the 14-24 carries, it has pretty big shoes to fill. If it cost half what the Nikkor does, then you could get away with some lower IQ, but if you're going to spend $1400 on a lens, what's another $400 to get one of the Nikon legends?

Ruahrc
 
Ruahrc said:
I don't think the 16-28 was ever intended to be a landscape lens. f2.8 is not needed for landscapes and putting it in just adds weight and cost. This lens is more geared towards things like photojournalism where you might be shooting in tight spaces but need a wider aperture for lower light (indoors, etc). Therefore, lack of filter threads is not really an issue. I wouldn't say it's necessarily fair to compare it to the 16-35, which really is more of a landscape lens.
Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure I would agree with this, or maybe I just don't understand your logic. As a photojournalist (which I am not), wouldn't you want more reach/range than something with just 12mm from front to back? I agree with your f2.8 assessment, it wouldn't be needed for landscape, more for low-light indoor shooting. However, wouldn't you want to use a lens with this FL for landscape too?

Let me put it another way - it's pretty much the same lens for FF as their 11-16 is for DX. I wouldn't use that lens if I were a photojournalist. That's just me.

Now, I'll bring it allllllllll the way back for the OP: make sure you know what you want a UWA for before shelling out the dough!

compuwar said:
If you use gels, the lack of a thread really doesn't matter, and you don't have to worry about vignetting with thicker filters too.
Click to expand...

Good point (esp. with vignetting at these FLs) - but sadly I don't use them, nor would I want to accumulate a collection for just one lens.
 
Ruahrc said:
The better comparison is to the 14-24- which at $1800 retail is almost 33% more expensive. I guess it really depends on the IQ, although with the reputation the 14-24 carries, it has pretty big shoes to fill. If it cost half what the Nikkor does, then you could get away with some lower IQ, but if you're going to spend $1400 on a lens, what's another $400 to get one of the Nikon legends?
Click to expand...

You are dead on the money here regarding price and IQ. I still think the 16-35 is the main competitor.

I think maybe this is just bitterness that the 50-135 was taken off the market with no news of a successor model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back