Input on Wide-Angle Lens

[Ruahrc]

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?

I think I'm trying to say, a FL like that would be useful to take pictures of a crowd you're standing in, not one you can step back from. I think PJs find themselves "in the action" a lot- thus the wide FL necessary because they can't (or often- don't want to) get away from the action for a wider angle. Also things like nightclubs, etc. where you're trying to shoot people literally a couple feet away from you.

The fact that these wide FLs are also useful for landscapes doesn't mean there can't be different lenses designed for different purposes within this category. The 14-24 (and this new 16-28) sacrifice filters in trade for that bulbous front element, allowing a faster aperture. Something like the Nikon 16-35, they give up some of the wide aperture in trade for a smaller lens- and a design that allows a screw-on filter. I think Nikon put VR on in order to enhance the utility of the lens, giving it a little more ability in marginal light when used handheld.

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.

Not sure I know exactly what gels are (are you referring to rectangular drop-in filters?) but how would you affix it to the front of the lens if there is no thread? Unless you handhold, most gels need a screw-on filter holder in order to accommodate the gels? Lee had to make a custom mount just for the 14-24 because it lacks filter threads.

 

[compuwar]

Not sure I know exactly what gels are (are you referring to rectangular drop-in filters?) but how would you affix it to the front of the lens if there is no thread? Unless you handhold, most gels need a screw-on filter holder in order to accommodate the gels? Lee had to make a custom mount just for the 14-24 because it lacks filter threads.

The Lee Gel-Snap rubber-bands onto the barrel, no threads necessary.

Paul

 

[pdxflint]

Thanks Manhattan... but I'll repeat myself... "depending on its performance and its price..." I would consider one if I made the move to FX... That seems pretty clear. It's not an endorsement of this new lens. I had no idea about either one of those two parameters (price, performance) when I made that statement, but even at $1400, we all know with third party lenses street prices are usually lower than suggested retail. We'll have to see how that shakes out-- but first and foremost, what will the image quality be like, and what will the AF performance be like? I see the Tokina 16-28 as clearly a Nikkor 14-24 alternative. We've seen excellent Tokina optical performance with other glass in the past, so there's no reason why this can't be a great lens for IQ. And if it is good, I welcome the third-party competition... and choices.

edit: Also, this will be available in Canon mount too, so Canon shooters might see it as an alternative to the Nikkor 14-24 with a $300 mount adapter.

As far as seeing 12mm focal range being on the short side... it's greater than the 10mm of the 14-24, equals the 12mm of any 12-24, exceeds the 10mm of certain 10-20 lenses... and so on. Maybe that's not for everyone, but lots of wide-angle zooms have been sold, so somebody likes them (including me.) And, as you said, it's as if Tokina is serving up a lens for FX with similar fields of view as their very successful and excellent performing 11-16 for DX. Not a "moronic" idea at all, IMHO. They hit a home run with the 11-16, and we'll have to see in the end where the price settles on this new lens. I guess only time will tell whether Tokina blew it with this one.

Back to OP: I stick with my original recommendation for you -- Tokina 12-24 original version - $399 brand new. You can't go wrong. But, there are also other choices that are also highly recommended by others... so, in the end, make a choice, then go out and have fun making photographs... that's really what it's all about in the end.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

I had no idea about either one of those two parameters (price, performance) when I made that statement, but even at $1400, we all know with third party lenses street prices are usually lower than suggested retail. We'll have to see how that shakes out-- but first and foremost, what will the image quality be like, and what will the AF performance be like? I see the Tokina 16-28 as clearly a Nikkor 14-24 alternative.

Out of curiosity, if the Nikkor is $1800, where would the Tokina price to get you interested, assuming the IQ is competitive?

Looking at the Tokina/Nikkor 12-24 comparison (50%), it'd need to be a pretty steep.

 

[pdxflint]

Out of curiosity, if the Nikkor is $1800, where would the Tokina price to get you interested, assuming the IQ is competitive?

Looking at the Tokina/Nikkor 12-24 comparison (50%), it'd need to be a pretty steep.

Well, we'd have to assume I've already bought an FX body... but to answer your question, I'm already interested. Doesn't mean I'd choose it, or not choose it. Not enough information yet, but in line with your question I don't think it has to be 50% less to keep me interested at all. In fact, I think I'd still choose the Tokina 12-24 over the Nikkor 12-24 version for a number of reasons other than just price, but primarily because it's much better built and very good optically-- I don't gain anything with the Nikkor to justify it's over $800 price.

With the Tokina 16-28 compared to the Nikkor 14-24, build quality advantage to Tokina wouldn't be the case, but I'm going to assume they're comparable in build quality, so it really boils down to performance (AF and optical) and price. If the built-in AF motor was high-end and quiet, if the image quality was close enough (and it would have to be really, really good in that case) I'd probably choose the Tokina if the street price were somewhere in the Nikkor 17-55f/2.8 range... say $1300. That's around $500 difference with the 14-24. But, all things considered I wouldn't settle for an obvious and apparent difference in image quality compared to the Nikkor, even for half-price if I was purchasing that category of lens. So... lots of variables I'd have to consider before actually choosing the new Tokina.

But, I'm glad to see them tackling more pro lens offerings for FX. Tokina is a really good lens manufacturer, so I don't necessarily consider them to be "cheaper" lenses-- they do cost less, but they don't charge a premium for the Nikkor logo and resale value, and for a working photographer that's what counts.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Well as I had made up my mind about which lens to get another pops into the picture… Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM for the Nikon.

I was going to go with the Tokina, yet this Sigma popped up and since then I'm giving it a strong nod. It would appear that none of these wide angle lenses don't come with a few issues that some pro's would warn others about yet most of us could live with them just fine. So with that said has anyone been using this lens and what are your thoughts regarding it? This is more or less my last comparison of lenses in this area before making my purchase and starting my new wide angle experiences.

 

[Ruahrc]

I don't know much about pricing, but I think optically speaking the Nikon 10-24 has proven to be a more than worthy successor (read: optically superior) to these older UWA lenses? Seems like the price of this Sigma isn't really any different (actually it might be more expensive) than the newer Nikon.

What is it about the Sigma do you like?

Ruahrc

 

[Artful Dodger]

Well I was looking for a bit more range than the Tokina 11-16mm however the image quality seems to be hard to beat even with the 12-24mm. I did like the images on the Sigma, well the ones I was able to find and because it had a bit more in the wide end looked good. I've read a bunch on the Nikon and looked at over a few hundred photos at the wide end to place question in either the person taking the photo or the lens itself (no easy task as too which one).
The Sigma, seemed like a nice balance however the 11-16mm has great optics but is limited compared to the others.
Price wise, not bad in the used area and new is a bit more of a difference. Just checking the options on the lenses that I can't seem to find a bunch on before I do make my click to buy.

 

[Designer Dale]

This might help you compare some of the lenses mentioned here. It's from LensRental. Most of these are in Nikon mount, too, so ignore the "for-canon".

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-202101/for-canon

This is the exact lens (f/3.5)

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm/for-nikon

Dale