Need a wide angle...

[Gibson]

So, I've put this off a bit too long and I need to buy a wide angle for school.

I've kind of got a couple ideas and need help deciding. Keep in mind that I have a D300 and that I also get a discount on Nikon gear, but not third party stuff.

Sigma 10-20
Nikon 12-24 F4 DX
Nikon 10-24 F3.5-4.5 DX
Nikon 14-24 F2.8
Tokina 12-24 F4
Tokina 11-16 F2.8

Typically, what's going to happen is that I'm going to have one of these on one body and my 70-200 F2.8 on the other body and have both on me at all times. This saves time changing lenses out in the field.

Help please!

[blitz]

I bought the Nikon 10-24 as my first "expensive" lens. I've been really satisfied with it so far.

I was going back and forth between it and the Tokina 11-16 2.8, and ended up choosing the Nikon because of the bigger usable range. I find I can leave the 10-24 on most of the time, I'm not sure I could use the Tokina the same way.

It was a hard choice though, the 2.8 on the Tokina was really tempting.

[Mitsu3000gt]

If the 14-24 is in your budget, there is no question to be asked - that is better than any lens from any manufacturer in that focal length. Period. The only potential downfalls would be the protruding front element (keep the hood on!), and weight if that bothers you.

Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24 if you want to save money.

Nikon 12-24 (lots available used I bet), Sigma 10-20 II, and Tokina 12-24 would be my third pics.

[INeedBoost]

Hey,

Check out the market place. I'm selling a Tokina 11-16mm Nikon mount. I have two a new and a used one (long story, check out my thread). I also used mine on a D300 as well and it was very useful and super fun.

I will try and post some pics when I have time. You're welcome to come and give it a try if you want.

Let me know

[Go4Long]

If you're not looking at spending a fortune the 11-16 is the best bet...at it's price point there's no wide angle that's sharper edge to edge period.

[Gibson]

Yeah, I read about the exceptional sharpness of the Tokina.

I think I've narrowed it down to either the 11-16 or the 10-24.

The 14-24, while straight ballin, is a little out of my price range and not quite wide enough...and it's an FX lens, correct? So it's actually a 21-36?

Tokina advantages:
Cheaper (I'd probably buy yours, INeedBoost) at $650.
F2.8
Extreme sharpness

Tokina disadvantages:
No warranty
Less usable range. Keep in mind this is for photojournalism, and I need as much flexibility as possible.

Nikon advantages:
5 year warranty
More range
Shipped right to my house brand new (I LOVE MY JOB)

Nikon disadvantages:
More expensive (I'm thinking it would probably be about $800)


Hmm....

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Gibson
The 14-24, while straight ballin, is a little out of my price range and not quite wide enough...and it's an FX lens, correct? So it's actually a 21-36?


Its an FX lens but that has absolutely nothing to do with it being 21-36 on your D300. The 1.5 crop applies to every lens. The DX lenses are affected by the 1.5 factor too, they are just designed to be lighter as they only need to accommodate the image circle of a APS-C sized sensor.

[quazimoto]

I think straight ballin would be an underestatement. I used it for the first time this weekend and it out performed my old Canon 14mm F2.8. I can't imagine a lens being better optically.

[AccentAE86]

I am an ultra-wide whore. An absolute junkie. I probably use it too much by most people's standards. I would choose the Tokina 11-16 out of the bunch. Excellent sharpness and constant 2.8 is great. I don't mind the short range because when you want wide, you REALLY want W-I-D-E. I'll bet the overwhelming majority of the shots taken by ultrawide lenses are taken at the wide end rather than the long end. Hence Tokina's success with such a short range zoom.

It's weakness is no ultrasonic focusing, CA, and not nearly as flare resistant as my Canon 10-22. But that doesn't make it anything less than an excellent lens for a good price.

The IQ of the 14-24 is nothing short of outstanding. Mind blowing actually. I was totally gonna pick one up. But then after borrowing one, I realized that I could not put up with it. It is SO fricken big and awkwardly shaped; it looks like a road pylon. It's odd shape makes it quite difficult to fit nicely in anything but large camera bags. Being strictly a location shooter, this wasn't very ideal for me. And it doesn't take standard filters. Yes, I know you can rig up something huge that makes it even MORE awkwardly shaped, but again, shooting on the fly isn't ideal for that. I use filters on and off often through a shoot.

Then I realized that the Tokina 11-16 works on a Full Frame camera at 15mm. I did the math...

15mm F/2.8 on full frame, excellent image quality, 77mm filters, small and light, $700

14mm F/2.8 on full frame, outstanding image quality, no regular filters, huge, heavy and awkward, $1900.

The tokina works for me. :)

[Gibson]

Thanks everyone. I've read that there's a significant difference between 10mm and 11mm, has anyone ever found this a huge problem when shooting wide?

I'm still really torn between the 10-24 and the 11-16 haha.

[quazimoto]

Well if you mount that 14-24 on a D3x it is certainly not akward. It blows the 14mm F2.8 away in comparison. I did own the 14mm before and I a simply shocked at how good the 14-24 is.

I think with the D3 and D3x its not akward at all but on a smaller DSLR it certainly wouldn't be as the front element flares out a lot. Not to mention a filter holder is around $400+ for it.

Simply the best wide angle lens I've ever used.

[soupey]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Well if you mount that 14-24 on a D3x it is certainly not akward. It blows the 14mm F2.8 away in comparison. I did own the 14mm before and I a simply shocked at how good the 14-24 is.

I think with the D3 and D3x its not akward at all but on a smaller DSLR it certainly wouldn't be as the front element flares out a lot. Not to mention a filter holder is around $400+ for it.

Simply the best wide angle lens I've ever used.

haha, so "akward".:burnout:

[seer_claw]

Didn't notice it get mentioned but the new Sigma 10-20 f3.5. It is great because of the constant f3.5 and apparently its really sharp. I've got the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and its my favourite lens for my camera. Granted it not much cheaper than the Nikon 10-24 but you so get the constant aperture.

Sigma 10-20 f3.5 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3360&navigator=6)

[Trini]

I got the Sigma 10-20mm, love it.

Here's an entire thread dedicated to photos taken using it.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=143064&page=2

[clem24]

Originally posted by Gibson
Thanks everyone. I've read that there's a significant difference between 10mm and 11mm, has anyone ever found this a huge problem when shooting wide?

I'm still really torn between the 10-24 and the 11-16 haha.

I am through with variable aperture lenses. After getting used to constant aperture lenses, there's just no going back. Go with the 11-16. Skip the Nikon. You won't be disappointed. Forget the discount.

[Gibson]

Yeah, that's what I ended up doing.

Thanks INeedBoost!

I have a pretty big hole in my range now, but I think I can deal with that. The only other
downside is the Tokie doesn't work with my current backup body, so I'll have to look at upgrading that in the near future. Anyone selling a D80?

[clem24]

Originally posted by AccentAE86
I don't mind the short range because when you want wide, you REALLY want W-I-D-E. I'll bet the overwhelming majority of the shots taken by ultrawide lenses are taken at the wide end rather than the long end. Hence Tokina's success with such a short range zoom.

This is true, but not everyone is doing what you do - i.e. I have only 1 camera body and can't easily switch to a different body with a normal lens or want to be lugging around another body.

When I had the 12-24, I could get many more shots on that lens without having to change it out. But with the 11-16, it's only good for one thing. Where I could probably get away with bringing ONLY the 12-24 say, on a hike, I cannot get away with that with my 11-16.

[AccentAE86]

I suppose. But I wouldn't have a problem taking an entire hike with just the 11-16. :)

Actually, that reminds me... one more thing that I wish that the 11-16 did better was have a closer MFD. The 10-22 allows for some really good closeups. I think the sigma is even better in that regard.