This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

 Moderated by: chrisbet, Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Ultra wide advice please   -   Page   1
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost



Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 02:40
 
1st Post
highlander



Joined: Tue Jul 24th, 2012
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 187
Status: 
Offline
I am trying to decide which of two ultra wides to go for as I get both from Ffordes used.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Or
Tokina 12-24 f4

I have 18-200 covered although I find the distortion on this at the wide end horrendous

I will be shooting landscapes mainly, possibly some architecture. I rarely use or worry about the fast end as mostly I'm f8/f11 minimum and using a tripod so VR doesn't matter. I can hand hold to 1/30 anyway. Too many years practice!

I've heard the 11-16 is the "better" lens, and sharper. But the range of the 12-24 seems more practical. DXO results on the two seem close, the 11-16 has the edge. Either will be "better" optically than my 18-200 of course.

Going on a D7100 if that makes any difference



____________________
Blog https://blythestorm.com
Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com
 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 02:43
 
2nd Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
Looks like the Tokina 12-24 would be better for you as you find the 18 end of the 18-200 is no good.
Either lens you will need to use around f8 to get sharp edges so it makes little difference.

I always discount DXO tests as they are lab results and arent real shooting. They dont test for flare, etc, jus the lab test stuff. Real life shooting is so different.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 04:09
 
3rd Post
Gilbert Sandberg

 

Joined: Mon Apr 16th, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 196
Status: 
Offline
H,
In my book any combination of zoom and architecture is a no-no.
The trouble is that market forces dictate that most lenses for DX are zooms, so you lose out as you want a non-distorting wide-angle on DX.
Regards, Gilbert

 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 05:15
 
4th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
Every ultra wide zoom I have used suffers from less than ideal performance at the widest setting. I bought the Sigma 10-20 for hotel bedroom shots and never needed (or wanted) to use it at 10mm. 12mm was wide enough even for the smallest hotel room interior shots. At 10mm you started to loose edge fidelity. I bought the Sigma12-24 ....and discovered the same max wide quality drop.

So the point is...a bit like the wisdom to stop down a lenses aperture for best quality, I would recommend backing off the zoom. Putting it another way...the 12mm on the 11-16 will probably be better than the 12 on the 12-24.
Just my 2cents



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 05:41
 
5th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
Have you considered the Samyang wides? They have quite a range.

I am with Gilbert and Eric on this one, zooms far from ideal, far too may compromises and with the Sigma 10-20 I almost always backed off to 12mm.

Sigma 10-20 1/10 Sec, f4.5, ISO250, @ 12mm



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 07:59
 
6th Post
highlander



Joined: Tue Jul 24th, 2012
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 187
Status: 
Offline
I think most of the shoots will be landscape with only occasional buildings and not for commercial purposes.

I am just wondering if it is better to stick with the bigger zoom, i.e. the 12-24 because I am more likely to use this for more subjects, and so it might end up living on the camera, whereas the 11-16 will be so wide and limited to being that wide, that it become very specific to sweeping landscapes?

Is the image quality difference so much? I have looked on flickr groups and pbase. But its seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other again.



____________________
Blog https://blythestorm.com
Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com
 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 08:45
 
7th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
I think there is a wide sample ranged with these lenses. Be prepared to return one or two... Especially if they are 'used', they may be rejects.

Mine, ex. Eric was really good sample but I have heard of poor ones.

If you went for the widest shortest range option, you may as well go for a fixed focal length. Trouble is you can't crop wider like you can crop longer with a tele lens. You can however very easily make small panorama's at zero cost without having to buy or carry another lens. I quite ofter take two or three exposures and stitch them.

Unfortunately you can't easily make panoramas of stars, they are constantly moving.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 09:15
 
8th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
highlander wrote: I think most of the shoots will be landscape with only occasional buildings and not for commercial purposes.

I am just wondering if it is better to stick with the bigger zoom, i.e. the 12-24 because I am more likely to use this for more subjects, and so it might end up living on the camera, whereas the 11-16 will be so wide and limited to being that wide, that it become very specific to sweeping landscapes?

Is the image quality difference so much? I have looked on flickr groups and pbase. But its seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other again.

I think the 12-24 mm (18-35mm FX)  is a much more useful lens. 
For me the best utility lens I have is the Nikon 35-105 f3.5-5.6 (FX) or 28-105 f3.5-5.6 (FX).  The 35-105 is very small for its quality and range.

I still have a Sigma 24-60 f2.8 zoom that I had before I got the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AFS, I use it when I need a smaller lighter setup. 



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 14:26
 
9th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
I had forgotten you had my 10-20......that WAS a good lens.

Have you got my lawnmower....couldn't find it in the shed?


:lol:



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 15:49
 
10th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
Eric wrote: I seem to have a double post infection.Cured.
:-)



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 1303     Current time is 00:53 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Ultra wide advice please Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Go to top
Go to end
Messages
Home
Recent topics
Unread posts
Last posts
Splash

Current theme is Modern editor



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0592 seconds (65% database + 35% PHP). 82 queries executed.