 |
| |
| 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, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
highlander
|
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 |
|||||||||
jk
|
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. |
|||||||||
Gilbert Sandberg
|
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 |
|||||||||
Eric
|
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 |
|||||||||
Robert
|
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  |
|||||||||
highlander
|
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. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
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. |
|||||||||
jk
|
highlander wrote: I think most of the shoots will be landscape with only occasional buildings and not for commercial purposes.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. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
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?  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote: I seem to have a double post infection.Cured.  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:I had forgotten you had my 10-20......that WAS a good lens. Not in my shed... have you tried searching the lawn, maybe it didn't make it back to the shed? Or did you turf it out last year??? |
|||||||||
jk
|
He probably lost it in the bathroom when he was cleaning it at the end of the season. Are you sure it didnt go down the plughole Eric?  |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
My Sigma 12x24 is an FX that gives good results on a D610 so on a DX most of the edge problems are reduced quite a bit. |
|||||||||
highlander
|
In the end I went for the 12-24 and I'm impressed and happy I tried both in the shop, couldn't tell much difference unless pixel peeping, went for the one I figured I would use the most Took it to Mull a few days later and it pretty much stayed on the camera all week |
|||||||||
jk
|
highlander wrote:In the end I went for the 12-24 and I'm impressed and happy  |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
A lot of lens dissatisfaction can be caused by attached accessories, like that filter shown in your post. A lot of them degrade the image because of the extra surfaces, defects etc. Without careful testing of a lens with a specific accessory there is no way of knowing the extent of the accessory degradation. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
You are right there Mike, I experienced ghost images, like watermarks in one set of images, eventually I nailed it to the UV filter which I had been advised to use in front of the lens. I had five 52mm UV filters at that time, frame the 'best' coated Nikon and Hoya to no-name cheapies. I replicated the conditions and tested them all, in fact some of the cheapies did a better job than the 'best' but they all degraded the image significantly. With the exception of my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 which I am unable to remove the filter for fear of damaging the lens, I got rid of all my UV filters at that point. I have suffered very occasional marking on the front element as a consequence but I have yet to see any degradation of an image as a consequence of the slight marks. Unfortunately I seem to have deleted that set of images from about 2010, probably during one of my culls! One 'accessory' which I do recommend is to use the lens hood, that can increase the contrast in an image, especially when using wide lenses. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
The only one I use consistantly is on the Laowa Venus 15mm f4 macro, which will focus down to about 1 cm and is difficult to clean. For dirty situations I will put one on. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
amazing50 wrote:The only one I use consistantly is on the Laowa Venus 15mm f4 macro, which will focus down to about 1 cm and is difficult to clean. For dirty situations I will put one on. Could You tell us about the LAOWA 15 f4.0, as I am looking into that one , since I can not afford Nikon`s PC-E 19 f4.0. I have seen a report about it , but it did not mention the quality when Rise/Fall was applied , apart that 3mm was the max for full frame. How is it at Infinity with Rise/Fall applied ? |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| 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@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |