NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Snetiger on August 06, 2016, 12:07:52
-
Hi,
I am thinking about investing into some wide angle lenses for D500 and D300S. I am interested in hearing about the 3rd party lenses as well as any Nikon lenses that are good to excellent in this department. At a glance Nikon seems lacking in terms of offers in the wide to ultra wide options for DX. Is there any 3rd party lenses that are as good as Nikon?
Warm regards
Jens
-
I hear wonders about the Nikkor 10-24 Zoom for DX
-
Ok. May look into that. :)
-
Try Sigma 18-35/1.8 zoom. Big and heavy one, but 3-in-1, and even wide open, extremely sharp. LZ
-
Wide-angle for DX is a problematic area, and is not likely to improve, as far as I can see. The fact is that as DX is the natural home of the mainly long-lens user, FX is the natural home of the mainly wide-angle user. There are relatively small gains from the smaller format in the wide-angle range because when the mount size and the flange focal distance are the same lens complexity scales with actual focal length. So the DX 12-24 f/4 is $1100 and the DX 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 is $900, while the FX 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is $750 and the FX 20mm f/1.8 is $800.
The Nikon 10-24 and 12-24 zooms are good but not great, relatively bulky, and expensive new (although the 12-24 is a bargain used - which tells you how many people bought it and then sold it). There is not much to choose between the 10-24 and the 12-24 (other than the extra 2mm).
The Tokina 12-28 is cheaper, about the same size, and also good but not great. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the newer 11-20/2.8 are also good. Tokina build quality is excellent - the Tokinas are the clear value for money choice.
If 24mm equivalent is wide enough the Nikon 16-80 is a good 16/2.8.
My two cents worth is that the choice among the zooms depends on how you photograph. If you like 35mm as a walk-around focal length the 12-24 can be a one lens kit - I often use it that way in cities (the Tokina 12-28 gives you even more flexibility). If you are carrying the 16-80 the Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 would be the obvious complement.
I have no experience with the third party primes, except for a brief test of the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8, which seemed to be excellent but is outside my budget.
-
If you want DX or APS-C wide angle primes, you need to look at Fuji X mirrorless. They are the only ones who have actually developed a nice line of APS-C lenses. Else it's full frame; Canon (DSLR), Nikon (DSLR) or Sony (mirrorless), if you want wide angle primes. There is of course Leica M in the full frame world, but that's super-expensive.
-
My point is that wide angle shooting on DX is tripod work between f=8 and f=16.
In this range most lenses are good enough for very decent results after Post Production.
A very good source of footage for any specific Nikkor is the Nikkor group on flickr. You sort all shots by lens tag
from the group page and get a lot of shots by different photographers with different settings. Judge for yourself.
On my D70 I was very happy with the 12-24 Tokina (500€ new at the time). Very solid built. Very decent IQ.
I sold a lot of Architecture shots taken with this combination.
-
a long time ago, the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is considered to be the best in it's class :o :o :o
it is an impressive lens ::)
-
Jens, I have been using the 17-35/2,8 AF-S for about a decade now. Both DX and FX formats. Its image quality is difficult to beat even with primes.
If you're looking for DX only, I suppose the 12-24 is the way to go...
-
I was completely happy with the Nikon 12-24 DX and the 17-55 DX, on DX when DX was 10 and then 12 megapixels.
-
tokina 11-16
sharp!! excellent build
very contrasty
greenish colors
high chromatic aberration
-
Wow lot of stuff to sort through here. :P
Thanks guys.
-
Hi, Jens, the wideangles are indeed one of issues of Nikon DX format. I often hear about the sample variation of Tokina lenses. If you need primes and can live without AF, you may want to look at Samyang who offers 10/2.8, 16/2.0 as well as 8/3.5 fisheye for Nikon F mount DX format. That said, I also hear about the sample variation of Samyang. My only experience with Samyang was 7.5/3.5 fisheye for m4/3 which was an excellent sample. The F mount Samyang lenses have chips and electric contacts.
-
I've certainly been impressed by the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Another choice that I've only read about is the Tokina 14-20 f/2. So far it's had good reviews. The wide maximum aperture would be very useful in dim light, as is the case with the Sigma.
-
I agree with Jakov on the AF-S 17-35/2.8 Very useful for both DX and FX.
-
3rd vote for the 17-35 f2,8.
I picked up the 14-24 f2,8 back when I was mainly shooting a D300 and found that even in DX 24mm is limiting. The 17-35 would have been a better choice, maybe complimented by a 10,5mm fish eye
-
Funny, when I had a D200, then a D2Xs, the results from my copy of the Nikon 17-35 frequently seemed to lack definition, but the Nikon 17-55 I later acquired had much better definition.
Later the 17-35 proved fine on the 12MP D3. Same copy. Probably operator error on my part.
-
Nothing against the 17-35, but 17mm on DX is not wide enough for me.
It should start somewhere at 10-12mm
-
Which is better for DX 17-55 or 17-35/2.8? Supposed I don't need 35-55 but which of the lenses is sharper more well behaved?
-
I haven't used the 17-55 so cannot answer directly. However the 17-35 will give you FX possibility and I guess it beats the 17-55 in all departments because on DX sized sensors it uses only the central part of the image circle.
-
When I was using D40, I bought 17-55/2.8 new which turned out to be a defect sample (off-centered optics and AF incaccuracy), Nikon couldn't fix it. I returned it and never looked back. That was the first of my several experiences with defect samples bought new.
-
I have owned 2 samples of the 17-55 which were very sharp to excellent on DX. But I never had a 17-35. Hence why I am curious to how it performs on 20-24 MP cameras.
-
I've never used these lenses, but from reading, the 17-55 is very prone to flare, while the 17-35 is much better for shooting into the light. That could make a difference depending on the type of shooting you do. Someone please correct if I'm wrong here...
-
Another vote for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
It's ridiculously sharp, build quality is superb, the feel great,and it's fun to use and play with dof/bokeh. Got mine used, now saving up for the 50-100mm.
A bit heavy and large, and it can miss on the focus now and then (not often). Focus is very silent.
Lots of positive reviews.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8
-
Nothing against the 17-35, but 17mm on DX is not wide enough for me.
It should start somewhere at 10-12mm
The kit to have, at the time when DX was Nikon's main offering, was the 12-24(18-35-e) and the 17-55(25.5-83-e).
I had both and was quite content...at the time.
A good copy of the 17-55 was "sharp" at all apertures and focal lengths, but did flare/ghost a bit more than the 17-35, and also has a peculiar field curvature at infinity @the wide end, which makes wide open landscape shots at 17mm a less than trouble-free undertaking.
-
I really like the Nikkor 10-24mm.
While definitely not a pro lens; given its size & weight..............it's a great performer.
Here's a shot taken with it mounted to a D7000.
Image downsized from 10mb to 2.5mb for viewing here :P
10mm
f/13
ISO-200
1/640s
-
Ron, I really like the boat and bay :)
-
Ron, I really like the boat and bay :)
Thanks Jakov :)
It's our 'new' run-about. We only get her a few weeks ago. She's a 1998 model with 40hp to push her along.
Perfect for what we want.
The bay is in the Kuringai National Park, near Sydney, Australia.
-
Another vote for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
It's ridiculously sharp, build quality is superb, the feel great,and it's fun to use and play with dof/bokeh. Got mine used, now saving up for the 50-100mm.
A bit heavy and large, and it can miss on the focus now and then (not often). Focus is very silent.
Lots of positive reviews.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8
Contemplating. It would be my first break up with the marriage to Nikkors. ;D
-
I really like the Nikkor 10-24mm.
While definitely not a pro lens; given its size & weight..............it's a great performer.
Here's a shot taken with it mounted to a D7000.
Image downsized from 10mb to 2.5mb for viewing here :P
10mm
f/13
ISO-200
1/640s
Nice shot, Ron!!
-
So what about Tokina 11-16/2.8 vs Nikon 10-24?
-
There is also a new Tokina 14-20/2 for DX format (yes f=2) Filter size is 82mm.
Compared to the Nikon 10-24, take your pick: do you need the faster aperture of the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or 14-20/2, or the wider angle of view and larger zoom range of the Nikon? The two Tokinas have rather restricted zoom ranges, could almost be considered "flexible primes" rather than a zoom.
As for the Sigma 18-35, heard mostly excellent things about it, except it is heavy and perhaps AF not accurate on outer AF points. It only covers a medium-wide to standard zoom range, in your original post you seemed to be asking for wide to ultra-wide options.
If you intend to shoot landscapes etc in good light or from a tripod with the lens stopped down for extra DOF, I would go for the Nikon. If you intend to shoot handheld in poor light, the faster alternatives might be better.
-
And why not the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8? It have read very positive reviews of that one.
-
I managed to find a Tokina 11-16/2.8 for 300 Euro so I am going to try that first and when cash permits possibly get a 17-35 or 18-35. :)
-
I managed to find a Tokina 11-16/2.8 for 300 Euro so I am going to try that first and when cash permits possibly get a 17-35 or 18-35. :)
congratulations to your decision. Hope you got yourself a good one.
11 to 16 is ultra wide ... lenses starting at 17 or 18 are pretty "normal" already nowadays.
In my youth 24mm was still considered "ultra wide" ... now we speak 14mm on FX.
-
Don't worry about the gear, worry about the final result :)
Whichever lens you end up using will be good enough to make a good photo :)
-
It is sharp. ;D
-
wow. great result. high resolution.
-
Yep! That is wide open at 2.8. Corrected for distortion in NX2.
-
Yep! That is wide open at 2.8. Corrected for distortion in NX2.
since 1983 I was always impressed by Tokina. My first Tokina was a cheapo 35mm-135mm for my OM-1