Wide-Angle Zoom Lense for D70

[FleurDuMal]

Hey guys,

Whilst I wait patiently for Nikon to get their act together with the 18-200mm VR lense, I've decided that I'm soon going to fork out for a wide-angle zoom lense to go with my 18-70mm. I'm very much looking forward to taking some landscapes and city scapes with this lense which the kit lenses' 18mm just can't achieve.

Basically, I was wondering which of the following models I should go for:
-Nikon 12-24mm - Definitely sounds like the best, but is almost twice as much as the Tokina
-Tokina 12-24mm - See above
-Sigma 10-20mm - The extra wide-angle at this length can make a huge difference. Is the cheapest of the three lenses, but I have read reviews raising doubt as to its build quality. Also, it lacks the constant f/4 which the above two do, which may make low light photography difficult (I love playing around with night cityscapes).

Any help/experience would be greatly appreciated

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Though I haven't used any of them, the Tokina is probably the lens I'll be purchasing soon for my d70s to use in headshot work.

 

[beavo451]

Here's something that can help you out:

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/review.html

 

[jared_kipe]

Hey guys,

Whilst I wait patiently for Nikon to get their act together with the 18-200mm VR lense, I've decided that I'm soon going to fork out for a wide-angle zoom lense to go with my 18-70mm. I'm very much looking forward to taking some landscapes and city scapes with this lense which the kit lenses' 18mm just can't achieve.

Basically, I was wondering which of the following models I should go for:
-Nikon 12-24mm - Definitely sounds like the best, but is almost twice as much as the Tokina
-Tokina 12-24mm - See above
-Sigma 10-20mm - The extra wide-angle at this length can make a huge difference. Is the cheapest of the three lenses, but I have read reviews raising doubt as to its build quality. Also, it lacks the constant f/4 which the above two do, which may make low light photography difficult (I love playing around with night cityscapes).

Any help/experience would be greatly appreciated

I have the Sigma, and while I haven't taken any night scapes with it, I find it to be a good quality. And I love the build quality. You can find my review on my website for it.

 

[maxi]

I believe this is the review you are looking for. Ken Rockwell compares the Nikon, Tokina, tamron and Sigma lenses:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

 

[Clix Pix]

I have Nikon's intriguing 10.5 fisheye as well as the 12-24mm Nikkor and they both work well for achieving that wide-angle point of view. I haven't tried other companies' versions, but basically, you get what you pay for....

 

[andiwm2003]

i just bought the sigma 10-20 for my sony. the nikon version has even HSM. it's a great lens for the price. really wiiiide! and sharp.

i'm happy. only problem is you really need to know what to shoot and how to compose it. i'm learning...........

 

[Abstract]

Basically, I was wondering which of the following models I should go for:
-Nikon 12-24mm - Definitely sounds like the best, but is almost twice as much as the Tokina
-Tokina 12-24mm - See above
-Sigma 10-20mm - The extra wide-angle at this length can make a huge difference. Is the cheapest of the three lenses, but I have read reviews raising doubt as to its build quality. Also, it lacks the constant f/4 which the above two do, which may make low light photography difficult (I love playing around with night cityscapes).

I hear they're all around the same. Honestly. I mean, you're gonna get great results from any of those lenses.

The Tokina is supposedly sharper than the Nikon, and that has been said in quite a few reviews and quite a few people doing their own user reviews, which is quite impressive. How big an edge in sharpness the Tokina has over the Nikon......not too sure. The Tokina is also (probably) better built and feels sturdy. It's heavier than the Nikon, but I love the way this lens feels in my hand.

However, Tokina.......where do I start..............well, for one thing, it has a chromatic abberation "problem." It's not that bad, but compared to the Nikon, the CA is gonna be worse. It's easily correctible in Photoshop though.

The Sigma is supposed to be quite good, but I think there's a reason the Tokina 12-24 mm is so darned popular. The constant f/4 is nice too.

Here's a SHUTTERBUG Review

Either way, I tried the Nikon 12-24 mm, but bought the Tokina 12-24 mm f/4, and I have never regretted it. The extra money I saved by buying a lens that's just as good as the Nikon went towards another lens.

 

[FleurDuMal]

Well, it looks like I should really be looking at the Tokina. Hopefully I won't miss the extra width of the Sigma. I certainly won't be buying the 12-24mm as it seems that's a lense for people with money to burn (not me ). I shall put the money saved towards the 18-200mm VR when Nikon sought out their supply problems (no doubt in 2016).

Another question: Where the hell can I get this Tokina lense in the UK? Is it safe to go off ebay (with all these HK import companies).

 

[seenew]

Is there a whole lot of difference in what the lens takes in between the Sigma and the Tokina? Or with all three?

I guess they must be similar enough, since they're being compared..
I really miss the wide-capabilities of my Coolpix, I just don't have a good wide lens for my 350D yet. I've got my normal lens (50mm f/1.8), tele-zoom (75-300 f/4-5.6), now I really want an affordable, yet quality wide lens. The 10-20mm Sigma is really appealing to me, since it has the shortest focal length, but is it that good? I've heard good stuff about Sigma, but then again, I've also been told not to trust one brand, but to trust their reputation with a single particular lens.

Is this lens good? It seems to fit my budget the best (especially if I can find one on ebay)

 

[Abstract]

Is there a whole lot of difference in what the lens takes in between the Sigma and the Tokina? Or with all three?

Likely not, but the Tokina has been popular for longer. I think the Sigma 10-20 is newer, but it's still supposed to be good. I doubt you'd notice much difference at all between the 10 mm of the Sigma and the 12 mm of the Tokina, because they all have their pros and cons.

If you want to know the difference in the extra 2 mm that the Sigma gives you, go to their websites and look at the size of the angle these 2 lenses cover. That should give you an idea.

I've heard good stuff about Sigma, but then again, I've also been told not to trust one brand, but to trust their reputation with a single particular lens.

I haven't heard anything like that, but this is my basic belief as a consumer for every company I deal with (including Apple). If I want to buy a wideangle that's not a Nikon, I buy Tokina. Tokina is most famous for that particular lens. If it weren't for that lens, many people would have never heard of Tokina. If I want to buy a 105 mm macro lens, but don't want to buy Nikon, I would buy the Sigma 105 mm. Yes, the Tokina 100 mm and Tamron 90 mm are all supposed to be just as good as the Sigma, and possibly the Nikon 105 mm as well, but the Sigma 105 mm has a fantastic reputation for a macro of around 100 mm. The company I choose really depends on what model I'm looking at.


And if you have the 50 mm f/1.8, and the 75-300 mm f4-5.6, you're probably better off getting an 18-50 or 18-55 f/2.8 of some sort rather than a 12-24 mm f/4 lens. I mean, 18 mm is already considered very wide, and you'll have f/2.8, which means you'll have great control over depth of field like you do with your 50 mm f/1.8. However, it'll be much more flexible than the 50 mm f/1.8, especially when you're with family or friends and you're indoors. Fantastic as an everyday lens as well. It's still good under low light, and you can zoom in and out to suit your needs.

 

[FleurDuMal]

And if you have the 50 mm f/1.8, and the 75-300 mm f4-5.6, you're probably better off getting an 18-50 or 18-55 f/2.8 of some sort rather than a 12-24 mm f/4 lens. I mean, 18 mm is already considered very wide, and you'll have f/2.8, which means you'll have great control over depth of field like you do with your 50 mm f/1.8. However, it'll be much more flexible than the 50 mm f/1.8, especially when you're with family or friends and you're indoors. Fantastic as an everyday lens as well. It's still good under low light, and you can zoom in and out to suit your needs.

Surely a zoom lense that can only go down to 18mm can't really be compared to a wide angle lense like Sigma for landscapes though? By 35mm standards, the 18-55mm can only reach 27mm, whilst the Sigma goes down to 15mm. That 12mm difference must make a big difference, surely?

 

[Obliviou$]

I own the Sigma myself, and don't regret a single day that I bought it. It's VERY wide and my copy is tack sharp

 

[FleurDuMal]

I own the Sigma myself, and don't regret a single day that I bought it. It's VERY wide and my copy is tack sharp

How do you find it under low light conditions at the widest end (which I presume the biggest aperture is 5.6, or have I got that wrong?!). I'm am gently being swayed towards the Sigma now, although the greater low light capabilities (albeit the difference isn't huge) of the the Tokina is attractive.

 

[Obliviou$]

How do you find it under low light conditions at the widest end (which I presume the biggest aperture is 5.6, or have I got that wrong?!). I'm am gently being swayed towards the Sigma now, although the greater low light capabilities (albeit the difference isn't huge) of the the Tokina is attractive.

The aperture isn't a big deal for me. I usually use a tripod in low light condition anyway, and when shooting this wide I usually find myself stopping down to f8 or greater.

Anyways, at 10mm, you can practically hand hold everything without camera blur. The biggest aperture is actually f/4 on the wide end. Then it degrades when you zoom.

 

[seenew]

And if you have the 50 mm f/1.8, and the 75-300 mm f4-5.6, you're probably better off getting an 18-50 or 18-55 f/2.8 of some sort rather than a 12-24 mm f/4 lens. I mean, 18 mm is already considered very wide, and you'll have f/2.8, which means you'll have great control over depth of field like you do with your 50 mm f/1.8. However, it'll be much more flexible than the 50 mm f/1.8, especially when you're with family or friends and you're indoors. Fantastic as an everyday lens as well. It's still good under low light, and you can zoom in and out to suit your needs.

Thing is, I've got the kit lens (18-55), but I hate it. It's cheap, it's plastic, and it's soft. It's also slow (f/4-5.6). I've also got a seemingly useless (to me) 28-90mm (f/4-5.6) as well. I might look into selling these to get (a little) money to help cover the cost of this lens. Or my Coolpix8800's IR conversion.

 

[virividox]

i have the nikon 12-24
i love it, great build and image quality! get it and you wont be disappointed

 

[Abstract]

Surely a zoom lense that can only go down to 18mm can't really be compared to a wide angle lense like Sigma for landscapes though? By 35mm standards, the 18-55mm can only reach 27mm, whilst the Sigma goes down to 15mm. That 12mm difference must make a big difference, surely?

Of course 12 mm is wider than 18 mm. However, 18 mm is already considered a rather wide zoom, and I didn't realize before that Seenew had an 18-55 mm already since he didn't include it in the list of lenses that he owns.

There are many stores, and even companies that will classify their 20 mm f/1.8, and even 24 and 28 mm f/1.8s as being wide angle, while 18 mm and under are sometimes even labelled "ultra wide angle." Now, this may not be entirely accurate, but there aren't THAT many lenses out there that go below 18 mm, and even less of those are zoom lenses like the 12-24 mm. In fact, you essentially have 1 zoom model from each of 4 companies to choose from, and they're all between 10-24 mm somewhere.

 

[Abstract]

Thing is, I've got the kit lens (18-55), but I hate it. It's cheap, it's plastic, and it's soft. It's also slow (f/4-5.6). I've also got a seemingly useless (to me) 28-90mm (f/4-5.6) as well.conversion.

The kit lens is cheap and feels cheap, but it's likely to be good optically speaking. It's not going to have huge flaws, or at least the Nikon 18-55 mm doesn't. That one feels cheap too, but it has decent optical qualities according to many tests.

And are the 18-55 and 28-90 mm lenses you own useless to you because you're not interested in shooting things in that focal range, or are they useless because you don't think the lenses are good?

I only suggested the 18-55 mm f/2.8 because it's still wide, and may be more useful for you in more situations. I mean, ever since I got my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, every other lens, including my 12-24 mm, has been collecting dust. Why? Because I don't need to shoot wide very often.

Either way, get the Sigma. You say money is a huge issue, and the Sigma is cheaper and I'm sure you'd be happy with either model.

 

[jared_kipe]

Sigma 10-20mm HSM
@10mm f6.3 1/320s
Took this a few days ago, when friends were up to visit Seattle. It looks overly sharpened when Aperture exports it to fit 640. But at 1:1 it is very sharp with no artifacts. Notice the perspective distortion as the guy on the right leans back, thus making his head smaller, because he thinks it makes him look "gangsta" in photos. Not this time buddy.