Wide Angle lens recommendations

JJ_SO

The time before FX I also loved my 10-24. And before the Sigma 10-20/3.5 with the Pentax. I'm a wide angle fan, I admit. Now, with the 14-24, the DX lens has become a bit unemployed, because I like close ups with wide angles and/or shots with lots of details to be explored after taking the photo. It's like reading a complete story afterwards, while you only see a chapter of it when capturing.

Gab

So I've been wanting a really good wide lens for landscapes and this morning I see the possibility that Nikon may want to help me out in the form of a rebate. Also, I think I may get a tax refund. Obviously a sign..

Here's my criteria:
I use a DX body (D7000) so the crop sensor has to be taken into account.
I already own the 18-200 Nikkor lens.
I want to shoot landscapes, so a fisheye isn't in my best interest.
I'm looking for a sharp lens.
I don't mind if there's some overlap into the range of my 18-200, what I'd like, though is something a little wider without getting into distortion.
I may someday go to full frame, so I'm rather hoping that this lens will start the collection of FF glass.
I've read a few reviews by Thom and even KR. I'm posting this to expand that review base. The more people that like a lens, and use it in similar situations to mine, the more likely I will be to concentrate my interest in that area.

As always, thanks in advance.

I use a 16-35VR on my d7000. It's sharp edge to edge, it has great contrast and color in pretty much all circumstances. If you don't need an UWA this is a good, but expensive option. Obviously there is distortion, but dealing with software auto-correction in LR, or in camera is not a big deal imo. In case you do need an UWA I suggest going for the Nikon 12-24, or the Tokina 11-16. The Tokina is the sharpest DX uwa lens, but it's a Tokina and I'm yet to see one that has consistent exposure across it's zoom range, with no decentering and accurate AF, but maybe I'm just not lucky.

I have d7000 and own tokina 12-24.... It just works fine (just fine)... Definitely there is enough range than 11-16... With that being said, I also get a feeling that my lens copy has some issues. It overexposes sometimes and doesn't have corner to corner sharpness. It could be just that the lens is a bad copy.

Lesson learnt: Never buy other than nikon lenses, worth to put in extra. If you are like me, on limited budget and willing to be patient, look at used Nikkor lenses on craigslist or ebay.

I had the Tokina 12-24 too and my copy wasn't fully compatible with my body either.

I have a Nikon 10-24 myself and absolutely love it! I also used to own a Tokina 11-16 but ended up selling it in favor of keeping the Nikon.

My last photo in PAD was taken with the 10-24 btw.

I prefer the Nikon 12-24 over the 10-24.

ChromiumPrime

@Gab never tried the 12-24 so can't compare. OTOH, I never really felt like I want to try another lens since I got my 10-24. Still, maybe the 12-24 actually is better than the 10-24 like you say

bland

I really like my 10-24 DX, it even shoots great in low light conditions with my D7000.

tcole1983

I really like my 10-24 DX, it even shoots great in low light conditions with my D7000.

If I had to do it again and wanted it for DX this would be my choice.

tcole1983

I thought I would post some examples up...

Tokina 12-24 @ 24mm


Nikon 18-200 @ 95mm


Tokina 12-24 @ 12mm (this is where I found the UWA to be more fun)


Tokina 12-24 @ 12mm


Nikon 18-200 @ 36mm


Nikon 17-55 @17mm


Really just depends on what you want to do and shoot. You can shoot landscapes with any of the zooms just about.

roombarobot

I got the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. It seems to be the beefier, FX version of the 11-16. Many reviews say that it is comparable to the Nikon 14-24mm, but at about 1/3 the cost. I have not gotten a chance to use it much, but perhaps that would be worth a look for you.

flight3

Wow Lare I think you read my mind. I was just thinking about making a thread about wide angle lenses (I shoot DX as well). I recently bought a 24mm 2.8d, which isn't bad. Though I do feel that it is a little soft until F4, I try to use it around F8. However, for $250 I can't complain much . I plan on looking into buying a better FX lens in the future. After reading some of these comments I think that I am leaning towards the Tokina 16-28mm. Don't know when I will EVER be able to afford the $2000 14-24 Nikon -_-.

TaoTeJared

The Tokina is the sharpest DX uwa lens, but it's a Tokina and I'm yet to see one that has consistent exposure across it's zoom range, with no decentering and accurate AF, but maybe I'm just not lucky.
....
Lesson learnt: Never buy other than nikon lenses, worth to put in extra. If you are like me, on limited budget and willing to be patient, look at used Nikkor lenses on craigslist or ebay.

...I had the Tokina 12-24 too and my copy wasn't fully compatible with my body either.

Where those of you with Tokina issues using the AFS or the AF (screw mount) versions? What bodies were you using? After seeing reviews for years, using mine for years, I have never heard of those issues. My Tokina 12-24 (AF screw Ver1) as never failed at all. Great lens, sharp, contrasty, and built like a tank. Out of 3rd party glass, Tokina is the best for the price, and it's performance is up there, or exceeds Nikon's.

I have been running the 16-28mm Tokina through it's tests - been busy so it's been taking a bit. Distortion control is better than I have ever seen in a UWA. The Nikon 14-24 is sharper at F2.8 but at F/4 I can't tell any difference between the two. Add some Clarity and Sharpening In light room, and the difference is null. Tokina also has a 17-35mm F/4 as well.

I love the Nikkors but the DX UWAs never seemed as robust as Tokina's and quite frankly, I don't think the Nikon UWAs are worth the 2-3x more you have to pay for them. You do not get enough gain to justify the cost increase. Can't go wrong with either though.

tcole1983

My tokina was the pro II version with the built in motor and it was fast and spot on. Never had a problem with the focus.

Msmoto

@ JJ_SO

"I'm a wide angle fan,"

For sure...even the portraits one can do if very careful to not distort beyond what one wants.

Swame_sp

Where those of you with Tokina issues using the AFS or the AF (screw mount) versions? What bodies were you using? After seeing reviews for years, using mine for years, I have never heard of those issues. My Tokina 12-24 (AF screw Ver1) as never failed at all. Great lens, sharp, contrasty, and built like a tank. Out of 3rd party glass, Tokina is the best for the price, and it's performance is up there, or exceeds Nikon's.

I love the Nikkors but the DX UWAs never seemed as robust as Tokina's and quite frankly, I don't think the Nikon UWAs are worth the 2-3x more you have to pay for them. You do not get enough gain to justify the cost increase. Can't go wrong with either though.

@TTJ... it's 12-24 Tokina f/4.. it's the first version... using it on D7000.

I also agree with your point that Tokinas are worth the price, only caveat being it should be a good copy.

I've had some good sharp photos but it seems to be a hit or miss.

spraynpray

Mine seems hit or hit - why not send yours off for a check-up?

kyoshinikon

Im in the Fx lens boat (Although I still shoot Dx bodies sadly) If I need wider the 10.5mm fisheye serves me well... My 14-24mm is good and wide but a t $2100 a pop it is a bit too much for many. When I shoot landscapes I don't use a wideangle but a 300mm and stitch it as a pan

Swame_sp

Mine seems hit or hit - why not send yours off for a check-up?

That's the plan, I've already got their address and details... I've an event to cover in March and April so waiting for that to complete.

Amac

I've got a nik 24-35 f2.8, awesome lens, might be older but still quality images.
On FX predictably great.

flight3

I'm trying to decide between the Sigma 20mm 1.8 and the Tokina 16-28 2.8. Even though I am using a DX camera I do plan on upgrading to full frame in the future, which is why I am deciding on an FX wide angle lens. I'd like to know if anyone has had experience with either of the two and whether they would recommend it. I would like this to be my main all around wide angle lens. I plan on selling my kit 18-55mm and 24mm to get the new lens. I have looked at many of the suggested lenses throughout this post and chose these because I would rather not spend more than a $1000 on a lens right now. Thanks for any help

mikep

i went for the 24 1.4 over the 14-24 as my wide angle lens. it takes filters easier, lighter, maybe a bit sharper being a prime etc. people do call it a speciality lens sometimes, but i dont agree and find it to be really quite versatile. it can also do really awesome bokeh and get really close up to subjects and melt the background, it can almost function as a macro lens since it can focus quite close. at 1.4 and with the subject close the dof is very small, this doll is about 5cm tall:



it can do situational portraits. this was in a darkish bar, iso3200, and sometimes that 1.4 can come in handy ya know for available light



and obviously its a good landscape lens at 24mm. overall, although you are stuck at 24mm, you do get some advantages, so its certainly one to be considered in my opinion.

DenverShooter

I run the Nikon 14mm to 24mm F/2.8 and its a great lens for a lot of applications like indoors, landscapes and any close quarter work.

Denver Shooter

Msmoto

The 24mm f/1.4 is excellent for wide open in low light, great bokeh, but probably the difference in sharpness between it and the 14-24mm is negligible. I did a test on a D800E with both and the evaluator stated no difference in sharpness.

But, if you are a "front protective filter nut" as I am, the 24mm does accept a 77mm filter and the 14-24 just has its front element sitting out there like a Hollywood Queen.....stunningly beautiful!

Bokeh of the 24mm f/1.4 at f/4.0

Seen better here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8132246990/sizes/o/in/set-72157631859730867/

flight3

I am also looking into the Tokina 17-35MM F4 lens if anyone has tried that as well. Though I would LOVE to get the 24mm 1.4, it is just not possible right now 8->

kyoshinikon

I wouldnt freak out about a naked 14-24mm. I had the joy of accidently ramming mine into a post over a year ago. It hit the pole so hard there was a piece of aluminum that appeared to me melded to it. After 15 mins of scratching and scraping it finally came off. Not a nick in the lens, not even discoloration from the coating. Mine is used mainly for portraits and getting into the action (I use my 300mm for landscapes).

JJ_SO

Wow, mikep and Msmoto - that's exactly what I love about that lens, sharpness and shallow DOF (which brings the sharpness even better to the eye).

@kyoshinikon: I wouldn't like to make the same experience as you did, but I think so too. Nikon did a nice job to tough it up as it's a real workhorse in some situations and is also spectacular.

I know there's a filter holder by Lee, but as it costs a fortune, I need to work without that.



ISO 50, 1/4, f/22, 15mm

As it collects a lot of light, difficult light situations are usually no problem - something is always bright enough to add some highlights



ISO 6400, 1/15, f/3.3, 15mm



ISO 6400, 1/20, f/2.8, 15mm

Gitzo

I shoot DX ; I bough a Nikon 12-24 / f4 about a year ago on eBay; I love the thing; and yes, the "12"becomes "18" on a DX body.......which is PLENTY wide for me; I use this thing more than anything in my bag, (unless I'm shooting birds ) you can score one on eBay for $500 or less if you look around; or, you can always pick up a f2.8, get one more stop, and spend another $1,500; all depends on how deep your pockets are.