|
Azure
Jan 21, 2009, 2:30 AM
Post #1 of 16
(8677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2007
Posts: 28
|
I'm looking to pick up a wide angle zoom and the reviews are all over the place.
I have been looking at the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX, the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX, and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX
Does anyone have any knowledge or experience with any of these lenses? Which one do you think out performs the others?
Price isn't the issue here, which normally would tell you to go with the Nikon over the 3rd party lens, but many reviews I have been reading say the Tokina has less distortion and shoots a crisper image.
Do you think 11-16 is too short a range to sacrifice for the F/2.8?
Suggestions anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Jan 21, 2009, 5:06 PM
Post #2 of 16
(8636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
I've shot with the Tokina 12-24 but I own and use the Tokina 11-16 and prefer it to the 12-24 made by either Nikon or Tokina. It's super sharp, has great contrast, and color. My lens setup is Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8, and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and I don't find the 11-16mm range too short with my 16-50 paired with it. It's a specialized lens for sure. Great with landscapes and shooting in small rooms.
Here are some sample images from mine, shot with a Nikon D300
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Azure
Jan 22, 2009, 4:21 AM
Post #3 of 16
(8611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2007
Posts: 28
|
Thanks for the opinion and info.
|
|
|
|
|
asellers98
Jan 22, 2009, 5:28 AM
Post #4 of 16
(8596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2008
Posts: 75
|
I am a canon user, so I can't suggest the lens, but the 2.8 really does help when you are taking shots in lower light scenes. but the f2.8 usually comes with a price and the added weight.
Second, before you drop the change on the lens, see if you can rent one, or a lens in that size. You may not like the learning curve, or the style of shooting you have to adopt to get great shots. I am a stand out of the way kind of photographer, and to get my style of shots I would have to get a lot closer than I do now to get the same results.
And lastly, see if it is compatible with expansion tubes, so that you could get more use out of the lens. Some lens lose autofocus with these devices, or because of the glass can't attach one.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jan 23, 2009, 1:37 AM
Post #5 of 16
(8561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Personally I shoot a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC.
This is the only lense I own that is not 2.8 or faster. The reasoning for me was simple, when I shoot wide angle, I am normally not in need of a fast lens. Most of the time, the lens is so wide, you get a ton of light.
In low light situation, if I'm shooting wide angle, chances are that I'm shooting scenic anyways and I open the lens wide and go for a slow shutter on a stable base.
I like roaming old part of the city with my wide angle lens. I can carry the camera at waist level or at my side and shoot people without lifting my arms.
This normally give me a low perspective, some ground, some sky, and the main subject too. You can see some of those shots on my blog.
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jan 28, 2009, 5:49 AM
Post #6 of 16
(8493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
I was also interested in the 11-16, but in looking at various chatter
re the lens a few months ago, it seemed that there was a serious
issue at getting a "good copy"--even some Nikonian intended review
of it (which I think was much older) got aborted for want of a decent
lens from Tokina. !?
Glad to see more recently only good comments about it.
But the short range does raise the important question about your
particular photo needs.
*kN*
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Feb 3, 2009, 5:25 AM
Post #7 of 16
(8411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
Lil bit of stuff:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html
I have the 12-24 f/4. Built like a tank.
|
|
|
|
|
pseudolith
Feb 3, 2009, 10:00 PM
Post #8 of 16
(8383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 96
|
I second Guangzhou's opinion of the Sigma 10-22. All of my favorite climbing pics have been taken through that lens.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Feb 4, 2009, 1:35 AM
Post #9 of 16
(8361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I love that lens too. I tend to buy Sigma because they make very good lens and are a bit cheaper than compatible Nikon lenses.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
naitch
Feb 4, 2009, 2:02 AM
Post #10 of 16
(8351 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 539
|
I'll be a third one here for the Sigma 10-20. I like the size, weight, handling, and range. I think there can be issues getting a good copy though, from what I've heard.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 5, 2009, 3:10 AM
Post #11 of 16
(8307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
guangzhou wrote: Personally I shoot a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC. This is the only lense I own that is not 2.8 or faster. The reasoning for me was simple, when I shoot wide angle, I am normally not in need of a fast lens. Most of the time, the lens is so wide, you get a ton of light. In low light situation, if I'm shooting wide angle, chances are that I'm shooting scenic anyways and I open the lens wide and go for a slow shutter on a stable base. I like roaming old part of the city with my wide angle lens. I can carry the camera at waist level or at my side and shoot people without lifting my arms. This normally give me a low perspective, some ground, some sky, and the main subject too. You can see some of those shots on my blog. My two cents
I'm with you on this.
i own the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, which as in most reviews is pretty soft at F/1.8 (but oddly not a lot softer than other ultra wides wide open).
By 2.8 it's decent, and f/4 it's as good as most 20mms. But now I'm carring around f/1.8 glass to shoot at f/2.8 to f/4, and usually shooting at f/5.6!!! Suffice to say, I usually use my 21mm 3.2 pancake which is no joke, almost 1/4th the size!!!
Any way, the point is most ultra wides are fairly flawed wide open, plus, as you noted, generally you aren't shooting such a lens to isolate with limited depth of field.
The Tokina 11-16 got great reviews but did not some flaws due to it's wide aperture. I didn't pay a lot of attention because it seems to be the only lens in Tokina's lineup they actually designed, and isn't avail in an OEM Pentax mount so I never could consider it as an option (the 12-24, 16-50, 50-135, 35mm macro, 10-17 fisheye, etc are all Pentax designs)
I own the 10-20mm Sigma, absolutely great lens. Sort of slow, but not a problem. I owned briefly the OEM Pentax version of the Tokina 12-24 and it was a stellar lens, unfortunately it was $700 and the Sigma was $500. I find the Sigma very on par, a bit smaller/lighter, and extremely sharp. I've printed a few very nice 11x14s with this lens, and a 16x20 as well.
The lens no one mentioned is the new Tamron 11-22 I think. It's a bit faster than the 12-24, or 10-20.
Lots of good choices!!!
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Feb 5, 2009, 3:25 AM
Post #12 of 16
(8304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I've never had good luck with Tamron lenses personally.
Glad to see you started bloging again.
E
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 5, 2009, 3:59 AM
Post #13 of 16
(8298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
guangzhou wrote: I've never had good luck with Tamron lenses personally. Glad to see you started bloging again. E
Thanks,
actually just put up a blog on pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com on the Nodal Ninja panoramic head. probably simulpost is on my blog at some point. yeah, chugging along again!
As far as tamron, I can't say I own a tamron lens, but a lot of people I know own and like them. The only Tamron I briefly had was the Nikon mount 70-200 2.8, it was either defective, or was terrible at focusing, went back, I ordered the Sigma 70-200 2.8, which is very nice and sharp wide open. Still kicking myself for passing up on a sweet 80-200 Nikkor AF-S for $550 locally.
|
|
|
|
|
Azure
Feb 8, 2009, 1:13 AM
Post #14 of 16
(8234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2007
Posts: 28
|
I went with the Tokina 11-16mm. So far I am very impressed with it. It's built well and shoots like a gem.
|
|
|
|
|
darwin
Feb 15, 2009, 2:12 PM
Post #15 of 16
(8088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2008
Posts: 1
|
go with the 12-24
|
|
|
|
|
JoshCaple
Feb 16, 2009, 11:15 AM
Post #16 of 16
(8054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 43
|
I've had the Nikon 12-24 for a couple years and it's been a great lens.
I can't speak for the others as I tend to go straight to Nikkor glass... call me a snob, but I like to know that I'm getting quality.
I shoot more often with the 17-35 2.8 these days but if you aren't shooting full frame I'd definitely vouch for the 12-24.
|
|
|
|
|
|
