Wide Angle Lens Help - Nikon D3100 Mount

[g3ck0]

Hi there,

I am looking at getting a wide angle lens in the not to distant future and have come up with the following choices -

Sigma 10-20mm
Tokina 11-16mm
Tokina 12-24mm

I will use it on my Nikon D3100. I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens along with a 55-200 VR but want an ultra wide angle as i love landscape photography.

Can people advise me on their experience with these lens'. Also, as i am a n00b, will both these lens' auto-focus with my D3100. Thanks in advance.

Chris

[tclune]

The Tokina 11-6 won't autofocus on your camera. I have the Tokina 12-24 and think it's a wonderful lens -- very well-made, sharp, with excellent contrast. It should work well with your camera. I should add that the Tokina has a fair amount of lateral CA, but the recent Nikons auto-correct for that and you may never see it in your images if you shoot JPEG or use Capture NX2 (I shoot NEF-only and use Capture NX2 and I never see the CA unless I choose to turn the auto-correct off in NX2.)

I have found the Tokina the least reliable for autofocusing of any lens I own. OTOH, manually focusing a UWA is pretty fool-proof -- I don't even bother looking through the viewfinder for it. I just eyeball the distance to the focal point and dial it into the distance scale of the lens. Probably more than 90% of the time the lens will autofocus without problem, but the remaining few percent are not real concerns. So I would have no qualms buying the 11-16 if that is what you really wanted, and hand-focus everything. BTW, the Sigma is a very well-regarded lens, too. I just don't have any experience with it.

The one thing that you really must have with UWA lenses is PP software that will allow you to correct for perspective problems. With landscape shots this is less of a problem (although personally I want to barf every time some fool proudly shows leaning trees and curving steeples and blathers on about how much he loves his UWA lens.) With architectural shots, it is absolutely essential, and with other shots it is usually a good idea to tweak the perspective. UWA lenses are really hard to use well. Hint: if the first thing people notice about your shot is your choice of lens, you probably did a bad job. This site has some of the best tutorials on working with a UWA lens that I've seen anywhere, so take the time to read them before going out for your first shoot. UWAs are very challenging to use well, but they are a lot of fun to experiment with. Enjoy!

[g3ck0]

I thought as much Tom and thank you for the reply. Will the Tokina 12-24mm auto focus on the D3100?

How does the focal length compare though? Is there really that much difference in going wide open at 10mm vs wide open at 12mm?

Im after a wide angle that is reasonably priced but if there is that drastic a difference, is it worth saving and going for the Nikon 12-24mm?

I want to go as wide as possible but read that the Sigma can fade out at the edges at 10mm

I have Photoshop CS5 so that will aid in the processing department.

[tclune]

I thought as much Tom and thank you for the reply. Will the Tokina 12-24mm auto focus on the D3100?

Yes, assuming you get the II version. The original version lacked a focusing motor.

How does the focal length compare though? Is there really that much difference in going wide open at 10mm vs wide open at 12mm?

I'm not the best person to ask. I don't spend a lot of time at 12mm even. I find UWA very challenging to control, so I never go wider than I have to. And, FWIW, I find the deep depth of field (and sometimes the apparent long distance between objects front-to-back, although that is as often a problem that needs mitigating as an effect to exploit in my photos) a bigger attraction compositionally than the wideness of view, so I normally am trying to keep the lens as long as I can get away with to lessen the cartoon effects. I have been doing a bit of amateur architectural photography in recent months, both for fun and to illustrate a property we are trying to sell. On these, the goal with UWA is to make the property look real, and UWA keeps wanting to turn rooms into bowling alleys and make walls look like they are ready to collapse and floors look like they are the deck of the Titanic.

Im after a wide angle that is reasonably priced but if there is that drastic a difference, is it worth saving and going for the Nikon 12-24mm?

I want to go as wide as possible but read that the Sigma can fade out at the edges at 10mm

Personally, I would never consider the Nikon 12-24. The Tokina 12-24 is absolutely wonderful at the same range, is built like a tank, and is literally half the price. If you wanted the Nikon 10-24, I would seriously consider just how much I wanted those extra 2mm. For some, that is really important. But I would be perfectly fine without the added width. The Nikon 14-24, OTOH, is to die for.

I have Photoshop CS5 so that will aid in the processing department.

Yup. That'll do ya.

[Black Pearl]

I bought one of the very first Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 lenses to reach the UK - years ago now and I have loved it ever since. A friend went and stumped up the extra cash for the Nikon 12-24mm f4 and while I have to admit it is a bit sharper he regularly 'borrowed' the Sigma when we were out shooting together as those extra 2mm's make a HUGE difference in tight spaces.

The build is good, it is amazingly sharp at 10mm with only the extreme corners being a little soft and it has never let me down. Would I change to the Nikon AF-S 10-24mm if I were given one - yes as I would like every lens in my bag to have a Nikon badge on it but I wouldn't spend the extra involved in selling mine and buying one.

[g3ck0]

Cheers everyone.

Your making me consider the Sigma 10-20 mm now! How does it fair up in low light?

[Black Pearl]

Rather well:

[Hans]

I have been struggling with the same questions recently. I decided on a mint used Nikon 12-24 as I want to use it as a lanscape lens and a photojournalistic lens so the focal length suits me and I LOVE this lens (got it for half RRP). I think the general consensus is that any of the two Tokinas or the Sigma are best options outside of Nikon due to the performance vs price issue with Nikon 12-24mm or the 10-24mm. I think you would notice the difference between 10, 11 and 12mm at the wide end so if landscape is your go than it is a consideration. I am not sure that the absence of AF-S on the 11-16 is that much of a problem for landscape photography, but you might miss it in other applications (though I think AF in an UWA is only taking a wild guess anyway when focussing into middle distance or further out). Donald (moderator) has the 11-16 and swears by it.

This dude is a bit unusual and opinionated but you might find the follwoing links helpful:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...comparison.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

THom Hogan has reviewed some of the thrid party lenses and the Nikon 12-24mm if you are interested:

http://bythom.com/nikon.htm

[g3ck0]

Thank you Hans, that was really useful!

I have looked at the Rockwell reviews. The more i think about it, the more i may just save for the Nikon Lens as it is an investment after all!, plus its a great piece of kit! I've got a lovely commission payment coming up from work, so i might use that to get the Nikon!

[Hans]

No worries.
Tough decision between the Nikons now!
10-24mm: Wider
12-24mm: Stronger and constant f4 (if that is important to you)
Both as sharp as the other in the real world and weigh nearly the same.
Good luck, but glad that is not my decision (I couldn't find the 10-24mm used when I bought )

[g3ck0]

I was fortunate enough to visit a local camera dealer and try out the Sigma 10-20mm and also the Tokina 12-24. The 10mm makes a HUGE difference. I didn't quite realise how heavy the lenses are though! Haha!

I liked the Sigma over the Tokina. They didn't have any of the Nikon's in stock, so i couldn't really compare.

To be honest though, i'm now considering investing the money in a 35mm and a flashgun and waiting for the Wide Angle. They are great, but expensive!

[Black Pearl]

Ooooooo, now you're talking - the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 is the favourite lens in my bag. Small, light, bright and belting sharp.

Fun too....

[g3ck0]

GREAT pic Robin! Picking up the 35mm at the end of the month! Thinking investing in either the SB-600/700 then picking up the Sigma 10-20mm! Went to a shopo and tried the Tokina and the SIGMA and you just can't beat that extra 2mm!

[Black Pearl]

Thanks - that 2mm makes all the difference so whatever option Sigma/Nikon you need a 10mm in your life.

[tclune]

GREAT pic Robin! Picking up the 35mm at the end of the month! Thinking investing in either the SB-600/700 then picking up the Sigma 10-20mm! Went to a shopo and tried the Tokina and the SIGMA and you just can't beat that extra 2mm!

Next time you're in that shop, see if they have the Nikon 14-24. If you try that, my guess is that you won't care at all for the extra 4 mm, and will sell your soul to the devil to get one. By my lights, the two Tokinas, the two DX Nikons, and the two Sigmas are all pretty much interchangeable. But, if you really think that the shortest focal length is best, you ought to try the Sigma 8-16 before you pull the trigger on any of them.

[Black Pearl]

The Nikon AF-S 14-24mm is a FX lens - yes you can put it on a DX body but it ain't gonna be anywhere as wide as a 10mm - and yes it is to die for but not really on a DX body.

The other problem and the Sigma 8-16 has the same one is the cost - lots of cost.