DX wide angle selection

playtothebeat

Some of you may have seen my earlier post on my search for a new lens. I think I've decided to (for now) hold off on a longer zoom (like the 70-200 f/4) and will put in some more effort with my 55-300, but I would like to get a wide angle lens to do some landscape shooting. I'm down to three options for now, and would love to hear if any of you have any experience with these, or recommend one over the others (or if there are others I should explore, for that matter). All of these fall into roughly the same price range ~$500-$600. I use a D5100 for now, but will be upgrading to 7200 at some point. May switch to FX down the road, but not certain of that at this point.

My current lenses include an 18-55 kit lens (the older one, not the recently released VR II lens; I might pick up one of those on ebay for $100 just to upgrade though - guessing it's a gray market lens at that price?), 55-300, and 50 1.8.

Tokina 11-20 f/2.8
Tokina 12-28 f/4
Nikon 12-24 f/4 (would have to buy used to stay in the price range)

heartyfisher

Depends on what your wide subject is.. I have the 12-24 nikkor.. Its nice and can be used to some extent on my FX. However, 12mm on DX is slightly not wide enough to take in a full room if you stand in a corner. 10mm is.. its something you may want to consider.

Its a tough ol' lense. it doesn't change size if you zoom or focus so it doesnt suck in dust.

retread

I have the Tokina 11-20 f2.8 but haven't used it outside yet. So far I am impressed with its performance but just got it when B&H had it in stock. I will be shooting this weekend so will try to give it a little more workout. Most of my shooting will be with the 70-200 though. I got it for when the 24-70 was not wide enough.

I also shoot with a D5100 with plans to upgrade. Hoping for the (unicorn) D400 but may have to settle for the D7200. Then on to FX. The 11-20 is said to work some on FX but I can not confirm that.

I chose it because of the f2.8 to match my 24-70, the old one now, and the 70-200, still the newer one both 2.8.

spraynpray

I'm going to say something different here: The focal length range you should be looking at is from 16-18 to between 55-140 for landscapes. Ultra-wides in the 10-16 range on DX are not general landscape lenses in my opinion, they are for getting in close, interior shots and big skies at night etc. When I reviewed my focal length usage on DX the landscape lengths I used the most were around the 20-24 range. I suggest you go for the Sigma 18-35 which is the best performing landscape lens out there in its range or the 17-55 f2.8 (used because it is a pro lens and so expensive), the 18-140 or the newest 16-80 f2.8-f4 I know they are out of your range on price, you will have to get refurbs or used but you will soon forget all that after you use them. The 18-55 VRII is a very good kit lens.

If you really want an ultrawide zoom for other purposes, there are some great bargains on Tokina 11-16 f2.8's around on ebay used. I just sold mine :-( and it was like new, built like my 17-55 and had faultless IQ.

I have not mentioned FX because DX is so good now, the tiny difference is not worth the price of the body and lenses for most users IMHO. With the D7200 being even better than my D7100 which is very good, I only get a fair IQ bump using my D750 at night.

Pistnbroke

Samyang 8mm for a DX though also works on FX for a circular image , For FX the Samyang 14mm ,,its so sharp you can regard it as a 14-28 with cropping....
wide angles always need pixels and will never be brilliant on DX wait for a D850 or whatever to upgrade
24MP is not enough for below 18mm on DX or 28mm on FX
Long lenses will not work well for you on a D5100 as you have no AF fine tune

tcole1983

+1 spraynpray...seems to be a common misconception even by myself before I purchased an ultrawide that you need it for landscapes. I went out in the mountains with my 12-24 on and pegged it at 24 and said dang I have to put my longer lens back on.

With an ultrawide it is really for standing close to something and wanting it all in the picture. IE indoors, outdoors in a city with large buildings, or to get some weird perspective of things. It has its place, but it isn't always the best option for landscapes in lots of cases.

I sold my 12-24 as spray did his 11-16...for me 17-55 is wide enough most of the time. However if I have to do it again I would probably get the nikon 10-24 if I was staying DX.

Edit: Hmmm was going to suggest the new 16-80 F2.8-4, but seems the reviews aren't that great so far. I would just bite the bullet and go 17-55 if you were wanting to step up from the variable lenses.


Last bit of advice. If you know what you need and you have a purpose and are sure you need it. Save your money and buy what you want. It wastes money to keep buying something that is a little better, but doesn't really do what you want or isn't what you wanted. I started like that and eventually sold everything I bought in that range and now have the lenses in my signature. I didn't buy it all in one day, but I like the kit I built over a couple of years. Trust me you will enjoy it more if you aren't compromising.

tcole1983

Shot with my 300 F4


17-55 at 34mm


17-55 at 17mm


17-55 at 35mm


18-200 at 95mm


12-24 at 12mm

retread

If you really want an ultrawide zoom for other purposes, there are some great bargains on Tokina 11-16 f2.8's around on ebay used. I just sold mine :-( and it was like new, built like my 17-55 and had faultless IQ.

I had the 11-16 on my want list until the 11-20 was announced and decided to wait and am glad I did. The 11-16 is a good lens, reviews I have read for the 11-20 say it is as good or better with more zoom range. I got mine for events when I could not back up with out getting foreground in the way of what I wanted. Landscape being a secondary use. So far I have found myself shooting at the longer end of the range.

How wide you shoot may depend on if you want a single mountain or the whole mountain range.

spraynpray

If you really want an ultrawide zoom for other purposes, there are some great bargains on Tokina 11-16 f2.8's around on ebay used. I just sold mine :-( and it was like new, built like my 17-55 and had faultless IQ.

I had the 11-16 on my want list until the 11-20 was announced and decided to wait and am glad I did. The 11-16 is a good lens, reviews I have read for the 11-20 say it is as good or better with more zoom range. I got mine for events when I could not back up with out getting foreground in the way of what I wanted. Landscape being a secondary use. So far I have found myself shooting at the longer end of the range.

How wide you shoot may depend on if you want a single mountain or the whole mountain range.

For sure 11-20 is a useful range, it will be interesting to read comparisons.

WestEndFoto

My most use lens for landscape is my 28, which would be about 18 or 19 on DX. My next most used is my 50, not my 20. I suspect that my recently acquired 40 will supplant my 50 from 2nd place.

Wider than 20, in my view, has very limited application in landscape photography.

Ironheart

Edit: Hmmm was going to suggest the new 16-80 F2.8-4, but seems the reviews aren't that great so far. I would just bite the bullet and go 17-55 if you were wanting to step up from the variable lenses.

Really? Every review I've seen has been pretty good. Do you have any examples, or could you post them on the 16-80 thread?

tcole1983

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1166860-REG/nikon_af_s_dx_nikkor_16_80mm.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afs_dx_nikkor_16_80mm_f_2_8_4_e_ed_vr_review/conclusion/

Ok maybe I jumped the gun a little, but doesn't sound great for the price.

playtothebeat

Thanks for the feedback thus far, everyone. I may be leaning towards the 10-28 based on the response i got. I think the new 16-80 is out of my price range at this point, to be honest, and i do like the idea of having something wider than the 17-55 kit lens if i need to shoot in tight spaces indoors. I think you're all correct - i probably didn't realize that the wide range of the 10-XX lenses is really not intended for general "landscaping". I think that's why I like the idea of the 10-28. It's a good price point for me as well..

Ironheart

10-28? I have the 10-24 DX, and other than a bit of distortion that's easy to deal with, it is a good, sharp lens.

playtothebeat

Misspoke - 12-28 (Tokina)

spraynpray

You also misspoke on the 17-55 kit lens - the 17-55 is the top end professional f2.8 built-to-last lens, the 18-55 VR is the kit lens. Make sure you get all this and research what you can buy these lenses for before you jump as otherwise you will regret it. The best advice - and trust me it is from experience - is buy the best you possibly can, because good glass lasts. In 5 years you will not even remember how much you paid but the quality of your images will last your lifetime.

tcole1983

I don't know anything about the 12-28, but just keep in mind you will be stuck with what you have between 28-50. Maybe it isn't a big deal for you, but you might shoot the 18-55 a bit more before you jump. At the wide end the 18-55 is actually faster at f3.5 so don't expect huge gains in that respect. Although I think you said you had an older version so maybe I am not on par as I have the newest model. I say shoot the one you have more though and if it is pegged at 18 then yeah maybe you need wider, but I wouldn't just buy it to buy it. I honestly didn't find much use for my 12-24 and it sat in my bag a lot.

playtothebeat

You also misspoke on the 17-55 kit lens - the 17-55 is the top end professional f2.8 built-to-last lens, the 18-55 VR is the kit lens.

Ugh that's what happens when I reply from my phone.. Yes I of course meant the 18-55 VR that came with the original camera purchase several years ago

Freedom7

I've been hoping that funds would eventually allow me to replace my oil spot ridden and tired old D7000 for a d750, reading through this thread I think I will wave the white flag and stick with my trusty old 17-55 (top lens, bought second hand, built like a tank, never let me down) and buy a d7200 instead.

retread

Funds are a little short here having just got the 11-20 and a tripod head. I think you are wise. That will be my next camera down the line if a better replacement doesn't show up while I am saving the money. Most of my glass is FX not ready for that yet but thinking ahead. The 18-55 kit lens is my other DX lens.

NikonMick

I bought my Nikkor 12-24/f4 secondhand about four years ago, and it's one of my favourite lenses.

And while heartyfisher suggested: "12mm on DX is slightly not wide enough to take in a full room if you stand in a corner", I sorta disagree.

It depends on the room's size, of course, as I show in this photo of a small room (4Mx4M or 13'X13') taken with the Nikkor 12-24/f4.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6834722634/in/photostream

Regards,

Mick

spraynpray

@NikonMick: Having had the 11-16 Tok, I agree with heartyfisher because if you stand in the corner, you see both walls at the edges of your frame whereas with your shot the narrower field of view just prevents that. I bought the 11-16 especially for a brochure and website shoot for a Chateau in the Loire Valley and it really proved indispensable for it's FoV. The 12-24 is much more useful generally though for its 17-24 range.

Msmoto

One thought, supporting the ultra wide camp, but clearly with some distortion, the 10.5mm f/2.8. This is on a D4, but about the crop of DX.


The critical factor is in maintaining the horizon, IMO.

esquilo

Concerning ultrawides. I have a Sigma 10-20 that I use when I need ultrawide. I almost never use the zoom-ring. It is always set on 10 mm. If I need something less ultra, I go for my 16-85. Since I don't need zoom I have started to consider a ultrawide prime. I've looked at Samyang 10 mm f/2.8 and Nikon 10.5 mm f/2.8 (fisheye), but neither of them take filters (sure, the Nikon 10.5 takes them up the ass, but that is useless for grads). Anyone know any other ultrawide I should consider?

spraynpray

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is bombproof and pretty vice free IMO. The new 10-20 is supposedly excellent, but I don't know if it is better than the 11-16 in that range. 77mm filters.

pictureted

I was very happy with the Nikon 10-24 for DX. As mentioned - the distortion is easily corrected and it's very sharp. The 10.5 is a fun alternative and when de-fished quite usable too as a wide-angle.