Hey all,

I'm looking into getting a good wide angle but I've got no idea on what to get so I'm after your help

I've got a D200 and my main lens is a 17-50 2.8 Tamron. I LOVE this lens, but I'm looking for something a bit wider for my architecture shots, but I'm not after a fish eye.


Any suggestions?

Cheers
Kierra

Nikkor 12-24 if you want to stay with Nikon. Sigma 10-20 or 12-24 but copies can vary quite a bit on the above mentioned Sigma lenses.

Yes, Sigma and Tamron won Pop Photo's Editor's Choice Awards:

http://www.popphoto.com/americanphotofeatures/5339/editors-choice-2008-slr-lenses.html

what f stop is the Nikkor 12-24? The Sigma 10-20 is like 3.5-5.6 isnt it? I've heard it isnt that sharp..

Nevermind, I found out its 2.8..

That makes it like $2500 -le sigh-

leftpocket wrote:
Yes, Sigma and Tamron won Pop Photo's Editor's Choice Awards:

http://www.popphoto.com/americanphotofeatures/5339/editors-choice-2008-slr-lenses.html





great article, thanks

tolkina 12-24 is very good, f4 all the way through i don't find f2.8 is necessary on an ultra wide.

louis fusco wrote:
tolkina 12-24 is very good, f4 all the way through i don't find f2.8 is necessary on an ultra wide.

Ooher, got any shots you'd like to share?

louis fusco wrote:
tolkina 12-24 is very good, f4 all the way through i don't find f2.8 is necessary on an ultra wide.

Yes, I had the tokina 12-24 when shooting Canon and it was a fantastic lens, very sharp with nice colors.

kierra wrote:
what f stop is the Nikkor 12-24? The Sigma 10-20 is like 3.5-5.6 isnt it? I've heard it isnt that sharp..

Nevermind, I found out its 2.8..

That makes it like $2500 -le sigh-

The Nikkor 12-24 can be had for around $600. The Sigma 10-20 is not 2.8 and neither is the Sigma 12-24. Like I said....the only issue with the Sigma lenses is finding a sharp copy. My Sigma 12-24 was exceptionally sharp on my MkIII and MkII. $2500

Hello kierra

"Ooher, got any shots you'd like to share?"

Here are some (very) large samples from my Tokina 12-24, although I should point out I use this lens on my crop Canon. I love the Toke, stunning lens, although not suitable if you intend to go full frame one day:

http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/ar16b.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/as008.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/as011.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/gdn007.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/la17.html

I love my Tokina, but I admit that if I were a Nikon shooter who was going full frame one day, and had the money, I would certainly buy the wonderful Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 G

Good luck

treebeard wrote:
kierra wrote:
what f stop is the Nikkor 12-24? The Sigma 10-20 is like 3.5-5.6 isnt it? I've heard it isnt that sharp..

Nevermind, I found out its 2.8..

That makes it like $2500 -le sigh-

The Nikkor 12-24 can be had for around $600. The Sigma 10-20 is not 2.8 and neither is the Sigma 12-24. Like I said....the only issue with the Sigma lenses is finding a sharp copy. My Sigma 12-24 was exceptionally sharp on my MkIII and MkII. $2500

$2500 I think is the price for it here in Australia.. Im pretty sure its the same lens i was looking at in my work catalog. I work in a camera store :P

Yea I want the sharpest one I can get, yes I do sharpen all my photos, but I'd like one where it isnt soft at the edges, I've seen that problem with the Sigma 10-20

David Baldwin wrote:
Hello kierra

"Ooher, got any shots you'd like to share?"

Here are some (very) large samples from my Tokina 12-24, although I should point out I use this lens on my crop Canon. I love the Toke, stunning lens, although not suitable if you intend to go full frame one day:

http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/ar16b.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/as008.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/as011.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/gdn007.html
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/la17.html

I love my Tokina, but I admit that if I were a Nikon shooter who was going full frame one day, and had the money, I would certainly buy the wonderful Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 G

Good luck


Great shots! I love the first and third ones. I'd dearly love to go full frame one day, just need a better paying job :P I'd own a D3 if I could afford it haha. Looks like a nice sharp lens.

Thanks for sharing!

If you work in a camera store, can't you get samples and try em out for yourself?

Max Power wrote:
If you work in a camera store, can't you get samples and try em out for yourself?


If I worked in our city store, possibly, since they have pretty much everything in stock, but that would only be around the store. If we want to use something we have to pay for it then return it in resalable condition.

I have the sigma 10-20 and I find it outstanding.
Here are 2 shots you can look at

kierra wrote:
treebeard wrote:
kierra wrote:
what f stop is the Nikkor 12-24? The Sigma 10-20 is like 3.5-5.6 isnt it? I've heard it isnt that sharp..

Nevermind, I found out its 2.8..

That makes it like $2500 -le sigh-

The Nikkor 12-24 can be had for around $600. The Sigma 10-20 is not 2.8 and neither is the Sigma 12-24. Like I said....the only issue with the Sigma lenses is finding a sharp copy. My Sigma 12-24 was exceptionally sharp on my MkIII and MkII. $2500

$2500 I think is the price for it here in Australia.. Im pretty sure its the same lens i was looking at in my work catalog. I work in a camera store :P

Yea I want the sharpest one I can get, yes I do sharpen all my photos, but I'd like one where it isnt soft at the edges, I've seen that problem with the Sigma 10-20

Sorry, forgot that you were in Australia!

I had the Sigma 10-20mm and it was great. I have the Tokina 11-16mm now because I wanted F/2.8 and it's even better. Probably the sharpest super wide next to the Nikon 14-24mm.

I like the Tokina 11-16 with my D200, very nice sharp images, very low distortion for a WA zoom and low CAs. It is surprising uses you find for f2.8, indoor photographing groups, meetings, and I'm an f8+ sort of guy.
Some folks have said this lens has a lot of CAs but I have only seem them on oof with extreme contrast and only on f2.8 (the only f-stop on this lens where anything is oof ;-)) and then the effect was very slight.

Tom

If you want an excellent Tokina 12-24 f/4, I have one for sale. She's taken most of my top photos (photojournalism and personal landscape work).

Well it seems like digital makes sharpening and other adjustments possible where now one has a whole range of accetable choices, from inexpensive to "hurt your wallet".

Sharpness, I think is not much of an issue. Low light ... makes f 2.8 nice. Geometric distortion makes the 12-24 a good candidate above many of the somewhat wider and cheaper choices ... but my values lie towards minimum focus ... and the very best in that regard is the Zeiss 25. It's not super wide by todays standards but the quality is up there with the very best it terms of IQ and built, both. But what I find special about it is that it is the very best at close focusing - better than even the 24 pc-e. It's not too expensive ($800) neither and is very carry-able. So if you don't want those extreme perspectives (which I personally find somewhat tiresome after a while, akin that the fishey look) then I'd seriously consider one and put it on my short list.

Great photos Tomb18!

Pavel wrote:
Great photos Tomb18!

No kidding.

+10

I had the Sigma 10-20 and was very happy with it. I switched to the Tokina 11-16 because it's sharper and 2.8 all the way thorough. I did a comparison here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/657992

Sigma 10-20 here.. mine is incredably sharp and never an issue.

Does not seem to matter who the lens is from, there is variance (Nikon being by far the most consistant).
The 10-20 not being a 2.8 has never come into play for me as I find that I want more depth than 2.8 gives or need to trim out some light during day shooting so never tempted to change it.

If anything I end up shooting mostly sports or macro, so this ends up getting little use...when it does..GREAT lens!
My guess... you can't go too wrong with any of the above lenses.

Thanks,
Anthony

Surprised no one has mentioned Nikon's incredible 14-24. Amazingly sharp and low distortion, which would be important for architectural images.