Wide Angle Lens

[Fifi]

I have a Nikon 7000, cropped sensor, primary lens 18-200 (27-304). I am looking into buying WAL, mostly for landscape/others, does not have to be nikon, but have looked at 10-24 & 12-24 (which are 15-36 & 18-36mm on cropped sensor). I like the 5 year warranty with Nikon. The more I read, the more confused I become with pros and cons. If anyone has any suggestions that would be very much appreciated!!!! THANKS

[Polar01]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm on the D7000, I have found it to be an excellent lens having given me no problems. The 10-24mm is f/3.5-4.5 and the 10-20mm is f/4.5-5.6 the 10-20 is about $310.00 less here in Canada than the lens for the Nikon to me that was the decision maker, as I said I have had no problems with that Sigma lens.

Cheers:

Allan

[Fifi]

Hi Allan, I have not thought about or researched the Sigma lens. Now I will have to look into that one, I like that it is cheaper than Nikon, and it has worked for you. Thanks so much for the suggestion!!
Happy photos,
Fifi

[dje]

Hi Fifi

I also have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 lens and have been happy with it so far for landscape work. There is another version with a constant max aperture of f/3.5 which is more expensive but might be better for indoor work where the light is lower. The other popular lens is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

Dave

[Fifi]

Dear Dave,
THANKS, this is very interesting and helpful information! I appreciate the information about the different Sigma lens, which I will read more about, AND it helps immensely to have the recommendations and information! Am going to research now since I had not considered Sigma. I have thought of theTokina, the more narrow range was something I did not prefer, but read it is excellent.
THANKS VERY MUCH DAVE FOR YOUR HELP,
Fifi

[Alandb]

I have the Tokina 12-24mm. I have not used it extensively but I am happy with it. I bought it used at about $250. I have this paired with a Tamron 17-50mm or Nikon 16-85mm. I have not decided which one to keep. I too have a D7000 and my name is Alan.

[Manfred M]

I have the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm, which I am very happy with. Frankly, your 18mm setting on the 18-200mm is a wide angle and most of my landscape shots are not done with a wide angle lens. Ultra-wide angle lenses are not really landscape lenses per se, as one needs some interesting foreground material and careful composition to get an image that is more than mostly foreground and sky.

Tokina has just come out with a f/4 12-28mm lens that looks quite good as well. From a construction standpoint, the Tokinas are very well built (as good as, if not better than the Nikkors) and definitely more robust than the Sigmas and Tamrons.

[Alandb]

Grumpy, could you define "robust"?

[Fifi]

Hi Alan, Yes I have read good reviews about the Tokina, but the 11-16 mm. I have thought of it. I do not know anything about the 12-24, other than Tokina is good, and if you are happy with it that confirms the reviews of Tokina and a good choice! I decided that I did not want the Tamron 10-24 after the reviews I read, though liked the price. This is the lens that most store have around here, no stores have the WAL I want to try-frustrating. Maybe they are not too popular. I prefer not to take the trouble to rent, if I get enough good advice like this and from the reviews. Thanks very much for your time Alan, and hope things work out with your choice of lens, which I have not read about specifically. THANKS!!!

[Fifi]

Dear Grumpy, well the 18-200 becomes 27-304mm on a crop-sensor body. I guess it depends on how you define wide or normal. On the APS-C lens I understand that 30 MM is normal, becoming like a 50mm on a full frame sensor. Now maybe you understand something different. I might be off somewhat, but with the 18-200 starting at 27 that is not so wide for me. I had initially been thinking of the Nikon 10-24 which translates to about 15-36 on a full frame sensor. This is pretty wide angle.

You made a very good point about interesting foreground material and careful composition with the WAL so everything is not so small, or you have all kinds of background you don't want. I would like to try one in the store. You mentioned that most of your landscapes are not done with a WAL-interesting. The WAL sounds like a challenge, different perspective, creative, and fun also, but wonder if that would last.

I know the warranty is 4 years extended, making it 5 years on the Nikon. Since my 18-200 has been sent in for repairs twice now under warranty, this is important (I am asking for a new lens, hope Nikon agrees). Tokina warranty is only 3 years. But it cost less too.

I appreciate all the different comments, made me think of some different lens, asking myself questions.
THANKS VERY MUCH GRUMPY AND EVERYONE!!!
Fifi

Tokinas seem encouraging from what you and others have said. I can figure what robust means, funny...

[Manfred M]

Grumpy, could you define "robust"?

The lens has a metal and plastic construction. While I would not recommend dropping any lens, mine has gone through more than a few knocks and is in great shape. A kit Nikkor would likely be in the trash can if I treated it that way. From a materials and construction standpoint, it is a solid and well built as my pro Nikon lenses.

[Fifi]

Dear Grumpy,
Well I do like to do lots of outdoor activities, so I do want something very robust! Tokina seems to take the votes, however I have read a lot of good things about both Nikon and Tokina, have not taken the time to read up much on Sigma yet. Again the warranty is a concern for me. You have both Nikon and Tokina, both are well built, though it does seem that Tokina appears to be more robust from what I have read-how much more...cheaper price.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, HELP, & THOUGHTS!

[Manfred M]

I am a bit of a fast, wide angle junkie. I own a f/3.5 8mm fisheye and the f/2.8 11-16mm Tokina that I use on the D90. I have a /f2.8 14-24mm Nikkor that I shoot on the D800 as well as a f/2.8 19mm lens on the film camera. I also know the 18-200mm lens; it is my wife's "go to" lens and she shoots it virtually all the time.

I had a quick look at my landscapes that I shot on the D90 (APS-C). They are usually taken at focal lengths between 24mm and 55mm (36mm through 82.5mm FF equivilent). I find that I generally use the ultrawides for interior architectural shots, but do have some ultrawide landscapes.


This shot was taken with the Tokina at 11mm

[shreds]

I would say to be careful with a WAL, distortions can easily creep in with the best of the lenses. The Sigma 10-20 for crop sensors is often cited as a great lens.

I use the Nikon 14-24 on a FF but realise that the cost is often prohibitive, despite its metal, bomb proof construction. I don't use anything else for indoor architectural photography, it is superb and goes everywhere with me. For landscapes though I prefer the 24-70 strangely enough.

[Adrian]

I very often use a 16-35 f2.8 as my walk around lens - even though I also have the 24-70 f2.8II (Canon - full frame). A wide angle is a very interesting too for street and indoor photography and will inspire creativity when you get used to it. However, it is rarely my first choice for landscape, as generally the issue of filling the foreground with something interesting is a constraint. Yesterday we did a hike through forests and fields in northern germany, and the WAL was used with a 70-200f2.8. Was an ideal combination.

My advice: try to buy a WAL with constant f2.8. It is much more useful for indoor and low light.

[RustBeltRaw]

Ultra-wides with big apertures are a lot of fun. There's a pretty big margin for error in focusing, and it lets you capture enormous chunks of your surroundings in a single shot, or create seriously dramatic perspectives. I have a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, and it's one of my most-used lenses (which is good, because it's also my most expensive). Good quality, good value. Only drawback is that it's not full-frame compatible. The shots below were captured with that lens on a 60D. Please don't pixel peep the second one. It's a bit crap. Just included to show the possible perspectives.

HDR composite of Basilica Cistern, Istanbul, Turkey.



Detroit Derby Girls skater aNOMaly. Taken with the lens zoomed all the way out and the front element about five inches from her elbow.

[rpcrowe]

I will have to admit that I am not a great fan of UWA lenses for landscape photography and certainly not as a tool for shooting people. I really regard an UWA lens as a specialized landscape tool and dislike the distortion apparent in an image of a person shot from a very close distance. I do, however, realize that many other photographers love this distortion. Different strokes (and focal lengths) for different folks.

When I owned a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, that was one of my favorite landscape lenses - even on a 1.6x camera.



However, my standard travel kit is now the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on 1.6x cameras.

That said, there are times when I need a lens a bit wider than the 17mm wide side of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on my 7D. My 12-24mm f/4 Tokina is a fine lens. I use the first edition of this lens and really like both its image quality and its rugged build. The MkII model has some different coatings which is said to make the lens less susceptible to flare but. I have honestly not had any flare problems with my MkI version.

The MkII model has incorporated a focusing motor which will make it viable with any model Nikon camera.

Some photographers want the extra coverage of a 10mm wide side. I frankly like the few extra millimeters on the long side because in a pinch, I could use the 12-24mm as a substitute for my mid-range zoom in case that lens ever fails. The 24mm side is a 34.8 mm equivalent...

I decided on the 12-24m Tokina after viewing the breathtaking galleries of Roman Johnson on pBase. Many of his gallery images were shot with the 12-24mm Tokina on a Nikon body.
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos

I have never been disappointed that I purchased my Tokina but, if I were buying now, I would take a look at the several other Tokina W/A lenses available...

One thing that I will mention. Shooting in RAW and then opening and initially editing my images in Camera RAW, allows me to correct a lot of the distortion that is inherent when shooting with wide focal lengths...

BTW: Lex, I missed the Basilica Cistern on my visit to Istanbul. (I opted for too short a time in this wonderfully photogenic city and had to deliberately miss some of the sights). That is where I would have used my 12-24mm Tokina. I also wanted to use this lens in interior of the Hagia Sophia because of the enormous expanse of that interior. Unfortunately, the interior was marred with a spider web of scaffolding due to a renovation project and I opted not to use anything wider than 17mm.

[Andrew1]

Fifi, one thing to consider is what your landscape is. When I lived in my last location in wide open spaces my landscape lens was primarily the 24-70 with the odd 70-200 thrown in. In my present location, unless I'm right on the coast, I can rarely see more that a few hundred yards and usually much less when considering taking a photo. As such the 70-200 is now rarely on the camera and the 12 - 24 use has picked up drastically. As others have pointed out, in most cases the more you pay for a lens the better lens you get. If you follow a few other threads you'll find many manufacturers have good lenses but some also have some not-so-good in their ranks. Also, to consider is the future of your involvement in photography. Digital cameras don't have the life expectancy we saw out of film cameras so a good lens will outlive your camera. If an upgrade at some time is foreseeable you might want to stick to an FX lens.

[Fifi]

Dear Grumpy,, I think that is a great photo! Thanks so very much for sending it, and your further info. Now I am questioning more if I even need and want a WAL. I know you made an earlier remark, and with your last comment I appreciate the question even more now, if I want/need a WAL. Earlier you spoke of the importance of the proper and right composition with landscape photography, and that you usually shoot your landscape at 24-55 on the AFS-C,and your wife uses the 18-200, which is my primary. So, I think I will give it more thought about getting a WAL. Since there are none to try in the area, it makes it more difficult to decide. I appreciate what you have said very much, as well as others!!!!
THANKS very much for the information and time,
FIFI

[Fifi]

Dear Shreds,
THANKS also for you time and suggestions!!! No, not affording the 14-24, though know a great lens, but becomes wider on a cropped sensor of course. So, Sigma again! And you are saying for landscapes you prefer a 24-70, which is interesting, again then questioning if I really would use a WAL for landscapes that much. Of course I would not use it all the time. The 18-200 becomes 27-304 FF equivalent, which is close to the 24-70 you like! Very intresting/helpful!
Thanks for the suggestions very much Shreds,
Fifi