Kit lens for super wide ?

[clemong888]

i'm kinda in a dilemma right now, i really like shooting landscapes and i find that the 18-70 is just not wide enough. i was thinking of selling that lens for either a tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-20(and top up some cash). i have a 50 prime as well as a 80-200 so i can cover most focal lengths on the tele side. is missing the 20/24 to 50 focal length that important?

[ShaolinTiger]

I'd say it's very important as that's the most used range, wide angle are too wide for shooting normal group/environment shot and give distortion so make people look weird.

The best range is 25-50mm for that kind of stuff, which you really can't live without.

I'd hang onto the kit lens until you can get something fast (f/2.8) in the 17-50mm range like the Tamron 17-50mm or of course even better the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8!

[sinister]

I'd say it's very important as that's the most used range, wide angle are too wide for shooting normal group/environment shot and give distortion so make people look weird.

The best range is 25-50mm for that kind of stuff, which you really can't live without.

I'd hang onto the kit lens until you can get something fast (f/2.8) in the 17-50mm range like the Tamron 17-50mm or of course even better the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8!

juz wondering.. d nikkor is 3 times d cost... is it 3 times better den tamron 1750?

[ShaolinTiger]

Not really, optically it's not much difference.

Mostly it's build quality, but that's both a plus and minus.

The Tamron is small and light, but not very strongly built...the Nikkor is HUGE and heavy and built like a tank.

For serious heavy use, it's better to get the Nikkor, for travel the Tamron.

[ckii96]

The Tokina 16-50mm should be available by now. This should a good lens for your wide end.

[ShaolinTiger]

The Tokina 16-50mm should be available by now. This should a good lens for your wide end.

Yeah was looking forwards to this one as the Tokina build quality and handling of distortion is excellent..but it's SO over-priced.

[clemong888]

yea, nearly twice tamron's 17-50....

i guess i'll just hafta wait until i have enough money then...

[kamkuey]

Here's my two cents.

The 18-70 is a fantastic general purpose lens. Great for event photography. It's cheap and it performs reasonably well. I would definitely keep it and buy a wide angle for lanscape and architectural shoots.

[Chrischong]

Well, my take is that you really shouldn't compromise on a lens unless you really can't afford it. No point buying a cheaper lens if you're the sort of person who'll long for the more expensive one later (but if you're fine with the quality of the budget lens, by all means go ahead).

The Nikkor 12-24 is a pretty damn good lens - just bought one myself after trying out a friend's.

Apart from being super sharp from corner to corner, it's got minimal distortion too (comparisons against the 18-70 at 18mm are incredible) and isn't as susceptible to flare either. Closest focusing distance is quite close, so you can take photos with really weird angles and ****.

Plus, it's a really well made lens. Dunno about the Tokina (never tried that before), but the Nikkor feels really solid - a cut above the 18-70 and 18-200 in build quality. According to Ken Rockwell, the Tokina is quite good too BUT not as good as the Nikkor.

So yes, I'd say if it's really important to you, wait a little longer, save up and buy the Nikkor 12-24.

A cheaper alternative (if you have the patience and time) is to use your current lens but take multiple offset shots and use a photo stitch application. The results won't always be perfect, but one of my colleagues got fantastic panorama shots in the Himalayas with his 18-200mm.

Of course (pardon me if I sound condescending), you could stick to your 18-70 and try shooting from different angles. Maybe squat low to the ground or take the subject from an extreme angle (i.e. offset to the sides).

After all, we learn to be creative when faced with limitations. All of the lenses I've bought never made me a better photographer :)

[ShaolinTiger]

I have to completely disagree with everything Chris has said about the Nikkor 12-24mm - it's possibly one of the worst (and definitely the most over-priced) Nikon lenses.

Ken Rockwell is a raving loony and does his 'reviews' with a quick feel of a lens, and sometimes having not even really used it at all.

Anyway to discuss super-wide angle lenses..

I did a side by side comparison of the Nikon 12-24mm the Sigma 12-24mm the Sigma 10-20mm the Tokina 12-24mm and the Tamron 11-18mm.

Worst of the lot was Tamron 11-18mm, ugly distortion, bad build quality, slow focus, lacking contrast and muted colours, just what you don't want for a mainly landscape lens.

If you are bothered by distortion (likely to shoot architecture), get the Tokina 12-24mm, it's second best in my books, sharper than the Nikkor (edge to edge), build quality can easily equal it and it's much cheaper.

I bought the Sigma 10-20mm, the HSM is fast and smooth and silent, it's sharp, build quality is good (apart from the stupid coating) the distortion is just fine.

It also has no visible CA and no real problems with flare.

As for the distortion that's there - I actually like it, it makes for more interesting pictures, I find pics from the Tokina and the Canon 10-22mm which both handle distortion extremely well rather 'flat'.

The 10mm makes a BIG difference too, each mm towards the wide end works out as a lot of degrees. If I want wide, I want really wide http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif If not I'd just stick to 17-55mm f/2.8...

The Nikkor is the 3rd best IMHO, and it's the most overpriced Nikon lens. I'm a great fan of Nikon lenses, but I think the 12-24mm is a waste of space ( Bad CA and flare handling, weird moustache distortion, not super sharp at the edges..). I'd much prefer the 10.5mm Fisheye if I was gonna spend that kind of cash.

You can get the Sigma for around RM2100 or RM1800 for a Grey set.

The Tokina is about RM1700 (I think)

The Nikkor is around RM3300 (I think)

The Sigma 12-24mm is only good for full frame, the build quality is nice though but the lack of support for filters can be a problem.

Most of these were shot at 10mm and have undergone NO correction, can you see the distortion?

Perhentian Island (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaolintiger/sets/72157600172206942/)

As for the issue with the constant f/4 aperture that both the Tokina and the Nikkor have, this was an issue when I first started looking.

But then I looked at it realistically, and this lens is for landscape, which you'll be shooting at f/8-11 anyway so the constant faster aperture doesn't really matter.

Owning the 10-20mm the only complaints I would have are:
Stupid coating which is liable to peel off
Stupid side-pinch lens cap which can't be used with the lenscap on (I changed mine for center-pinch Nikon cap - which is good)
Non constant f/4 aperture - but as I explained above in reality I don't find this a limitationAs for positives:
Good colours
Acceptably Sharp
10mm is really wide and noticeable wider than 12mm
Good build quality
Fast silent focusingAll in all the best recommendation if you want to get a superwide is to go and try the Tokina and the Sigma and see which you like best.

I'd keep the 18-70mm aswell anyway.

Anyway this is gearhead talk, better go out and use what you have and take more pictures :) You'll end up knowing what you need after some time anyway.

More lenses doesn't equal better photos.

[clemong888]

student on an allowane = can't afford overpriced nikkor 12-24. it might slightly edge out 3rd party lenses but it doesnt justify the ridiculous price tag.

i already know i want/need a super wide but its what and how i get to buying it :P

maybe i'd try the sigma because i've already owned 2 tokina lenses. and there's hsm :)

[Chrischong]

Dear ST,

Watch now, as I furiously defend my purchase :)

* Ahem! *

Well, it's true that the 12-24 has a hint of corner softness at 12mm,
though I always assume that the CA and slight softness at the corners at 12mm are a given when you think about the sheer amount of correction the optics have to do to - but as I've said, I've not tried lenses such as the Tokina, so I can't argue if the Nikkor is sharper.

For that matter, I've not tried any of the other super wide zooms. My basis for comparison are the results I get from my 18-70mm, a borrowed 18-55mm and a colleague's 18-200mm.

My own experiences with the 12-24mm have been fantastic, so far. I don't notice the moustache distortion simply because I don't shoot buildings head on, but when I tested the lens at 18mm against my 18-70, the difference was as clear as day and night.

And when it came to corner sharpness, the 12-24 gets seriously sharp once you reach about 16mm or more. Yes, this lens will most likely be purchased simply for the 12mm end, but I wouldn't discount its performance from the other end of the zoom range either.

Here are three photos I took with the 12-24 at the wide end. No corrections or Photoshop - these photos are what came out from my camera:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=524743065&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=524743055&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=524743021&size=l

Note that these shots are only at 1,024x685 pixels. I realise that you can't pixel peep properly with scaled down images. The main problems you'll notice are the softer bushes to the lower left of the mountain shot, and noticeable purple fringing on the branches in the second shot (the one with the trees, though this is a typical worst-case scenario shot).

I highly doubt you'll notice the corner softness in a regular A4 or A3 print unless you stare real hard to look for the errors.

I disagree about the flare, though. I maintain that the 12-24 has excellent resistance to flare though I'm sure it's also dependent on how much sunlight is shining directly into your lens.

I agree about the price though. Just because I bought it, it doesn't mean that I found it affordable.

I also agree that we should concentrate more on shooting photos than whining about specs and trying to defend our purchases... Erm, yeah. See you tomorrow. :)

[ShaolinTiger]

Well as I always say, the most important thing is are you happy with it, and it seems you are so it's money well spent.

Just IMHO there are better options that cost a LOT less, the pictures from the Tokina are slightly better than the Nikkor and it's less than half the price.

The Sigma 10-20mm has the wideness advantage and it's just a bit more than half the price :)

Let's go shoot yayyy.

[The Dark]

mmmm.... Saving money for the Tokina 12-24. Oh nooo..Why Im getting poisoned so easily nowadays..:(

[maestro]

last time i check at LEOS COM TRADING .. there a wide converter for nikon . price wise can't remember .. i bought myself for canon kit lens wide converter + macro only for RM130 .. for nikon a bit expensive

[limgt]

More lenses doesn't equal better photos.

I'm an amatuer but enthusiastic photographer currently shooting with a D50 + Kit 18-55 + 70-300G lenses. I think a feasible decision for myself would be selling off both the 18-55 and 70-300G and get a Sigma 10-20 + 18-200VR. Like this I can get really wide and at the same time a great walkaround lens.

[ShaolinTiger]

I'm an amatuer but enthusiastic photographer currently shooting with a D50 + Kit 18-55 + 70-300G lenses. I think a feasible decision for myself would be selling off both the 18-55 and 70-300G and get a Sigma 10-20 + 18-200VR. Like this I can get really wide and at the same time a great walkaround lens.

That would be a good compact combo.

If you can stretch your budget slightly more though I'd suggest Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 70-300mm VR. The Tamron and the Nikkor comes in at around RM3200 which is about RM700 more than the 18-200 but will give much better pics and more reach.

[genedavinci]

this is what my sigma did with distortion: http://genedavinci.com/raub2006/?7

[noordin]

Super wide is a different set of lens. That's the 12-24mm Nikon or 10-20 mm Sigma. I have the Nikon and I rarely use it unless it's for landscape and shooting landscape is an effort in itself because I have to get out of the city. So if you want a super wide lens, by all means get it. But keep your kit lens because that will be used more often than your super wide or your 50mm prime.

[sinister]

Super wide is a different set of lens. That's the 12-24mm Nikon or 10-20 mm Sigma. I have the Nikon and I rarely use it unless it's for landscape and shooting landscape is an effort in itself because I have to get out of the city. So if you want a super wide lens, by all means get it. But keep your kit lens because that will be used more often than your super wide or your 50mm prime.

but if u like taking landscape or building.. u'll find away.. no need give excuses... :D

[vpam5221]

woot.... luckilly i found this thread,,,,, was looking at nikon 12-24... damn expansive ones,,,, but seems like the sigma one is not too bad and well priced.............. i am using D40 and only these two lens can autofocus,,,, hmmmmmm.... tempting

[Mavik]

I think the new 12-24mm f/2.8 by Nikon would have addressed most of the issues found with the old 12-24mm but of course be ready to pay a premium for it.

[ShaolinTiger]

I think the new 12-24mm f/2.8 by Nikon would have addressed most of the issues found with the old 12-24mm but of course be ready to pay a premium for it.

It's 14-24mm and it's meant for full frame - it's an FX lens unlike the 12-24mm which is a DX lens.

14mm still isn't that wide on a cropped sensor (10mm wide angle is 16mm) but it's massive on FF.

[ndgoh]

Anyone tried Tokina 12-24 mm f/4?

[tools4fools]

But keep your kit lens because that will be used more often than your super wide or your 50mm prime.

hmmm, depends on man behind camera....

My 17-35mm is the default lens (and 60-70% of images taken with it) on my camera these days, the 50mm 1,4 closes the gap inbetween and the 80-200mm 2,8 does the long range work. I often don't carry a 'mid-zoom' anymore....

++++++

[ndgoh]

I use 18-200VR all the time... Lazy to change la...
















Erm... more like, no other lenses to change la... :D