So, my girlfriend mentioned tonight that she has listened to my mumbling about "distorted foreground" and such for long enough, and she wants to buy me an ultrawide zoom for my D300 (which makes her a true keeper for sure) for my birthday. Trying to figure out which one might be the best option.
So far, I've been tempted by the following (trying to keep the budget under $500 if possible):
Tokina 12-24/4 (would likely buy the older, non-BIM version new)
Tokina 11-16/2.8 (would likely try to find used)
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 (would buy new)
Nikon 12-24/4 (would try and find used, and I'd chip in to make up the difference)
So far, I've tried out both Tokinas and the Nikon, as well as the Nikon 10-24 (really liked it, but it's tough to find used and the price new is outside of what I'd like to pay) but haven't really had a chance to get them out in the wild too much apart from the Nikon. I'd be using it for landscape stuff primarily, with the occasional silly portrait of my nephews from time to time.
Right now, my widest lens is the 18-105, and I've got the 35, 50, and 85 1.8, so I'm pretty well covered for those ranges.
Any advice from those that have experience with multiple? Is it worth the extra money for the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 12-24?
tokina 11-16 is the best of the bunch. it's the closest thing DX has to the 14-24mm, unless you actually shoot the 14-24mm
after that- i'd take the 12-24mm tokina i used to have over the sigma 10-20 i have now- i don't really like the way it takes flare, more sensitive than i'd thought it'd be. the nikon 12-24mm while on paper was designed well is a mixed bag- some people say their copies are atrocious, while others like it. from my experience- the 12-24mm tokina does the same if not a better job- for way less $$$, when i made the decision originally between both- the nikon was $900-1000, and the tokina was $400- I would do that again in a heartbeat- if the tokina 11-16mm didn't exsist.
---XR--- wrote:
tokina 11-16 is the best of the bunch. it's the closest thing DX has to the 14-24mm, unless you actually shoot the 14-24mm
after that- i'd take the 12-24mm tokina i used to have over the sigma 10-20 i have now- i don't really like the way it takes flare, more sensitive than i'd thought it'd be. the nikon 12-24mm while on paper was designed well is a mixed bag- some people say their copies are atrocious, while others like it. from my experience- the 12-24mm tokina does the same if not a better job- for way less $$$, when i made the decision originally between both- the nikon was $900-1000, and the tokina was $400- I would do that again in a heartbeat- if the tokina 11-16mm didn't exsist....Show more →
Yeah, the 14-24 certainly is out of the question for this exercise. She loves me, but not quite that much.
So, here's the conundrum as I see it: when trying out the Tokina 11-16 and the Nikon 10-24, I actually noticed a difference in how wide that angle was compared to the Tokina 12-24, and I liked it. Kind of thinking I might prefer that extra little bit, even if I didn't need the 2.8 aperture (which I really don't seeing as how the majority of what I'm doing will either be on a tripod or in good light/lit with a flash). It's so much easier when I'm just spending my money - then budget is directly correlated with my willingness to pay.
Go to lensrentals.com and read "Roger's take" on each of the lenses you're interested in. It's very useful and informative. He compares them to each other.
The Tokina 12-24 is my workhorse. I sometimes wished it went to 11 or 10mm, but really appreciate it going to 24 on the long end. Nice range and great value.
Any advice from those that have experience with multiple? Is it worth the extra money for the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 12-24?
I've owned the Nikon 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and (currently) the Tokina 12-24.
The Nikon is a wonderful lens, and if you shoot wide-angle a lot, it is worth paying extra for. I'm not that person....perhaps you are.
The Tokina I currently own I bought used for under $350. My testing so far shows it to be equal to the Nikon for all intents and purposes. It clearly is a better value.
I expected to like the Sigma....but it was noticeably less sharp than the Nikon I had been using (and the Tokina I am using now). I don't know if I got a bad copy (I bought it used, something I said I would never do with Sigma) but the lack of clarity seemed broadly distributed and not restricted to the corners.
I haven't used the 11-16, and the lack of distortion and f/2.8 aperture would be nice to have. Again its up to how much you want to spend vs how much the lens will be one of your mainstays.
hlavo wrote:
I've owned the Nikon 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and (currently) the Tokina 12-24.
The Nikon is a wonderful lens, and if you shoot wide-angle a lot, it is worth paying extra for. I'm not that person....perhaps you are.
The Tokina I currently own I bought used for under $350. My testing so far shows it to be equal to the Nikon for all intents and purposes. It clearly is a better value.
I expected to like the Sigma....but it was noticeably less sharp than the Nikon I had been using (and the Tokina I am using now). I don't know if I got a bad copy (I bought it used, something I said I would never do with Sigma) but the lack of clarity seemed broadly distributed and not restricted to the corners.
I haven't used the 11-16, and the lack of distortion and f/2.8 aperture would be nice to have. Again its up to how much you want to spend vs how much the lens will be one of your mainstays.
I've basically narrowed it down to the two Tokinas now. I'm not willing to jump to the Nikon 12-24 yet (would be willing to if I found myself using WA a lot) and my research suggests that the Sigma isn't quite the same quality lens all things considered.
If the 11-16 were an 11-20, it'd be a no brainer - I'm just concerned that I'll find times where I'll get to the end of the zoom and just need a touch more reach. Then again, I love the samples I've seen from it and the fact that it is fast glass even if DOF isn't a big feature of a something this wide. I'm planning to go to my local camera store this Saturday and try them both out - I expect I'll be leaving with one of them....part of me just wants to buy both as they have their uses, but since I've got a line on an 80-200 2.8 locally, I think I've done enough lens purchasing for one week.
