UWA for the D600 - Nikon 16-35 vs Tokina 17-35

Started Dec 13, 2012 | Questions thread
dezinerd
Contributing MemberPosts: 929Gear list
Like?
Re: UWA for the D600 - Nikon 16-35 vs Tokina 17-35
In reply to lfc293, Dec 16, 2012

I have no experience with the D600 but have used the 16-35 and other wide angles on my d700.

Nikkor 16-35 has given me the best results. I try not to use it a 16 as that 1 mm between 16 and 17 really causes the distortion to get worse. The lens is sharp, resistant to flare, its a wide angle so it is easy to get flare but it is the best that I have tryed. Lots of people on these forums like to scumbag the VR even though they have not used it. It has allowed me to get close up shots of plants with out laying on my belly or using a hot dog go down to the ground tripod. With the increased resolution of the d600 VR will be even more useful.

Tokina 12-24 first version. It will cover FX from about 18 to 24mm. It is a great lens but I became impatient with the short zoom that was usable. An 18 mm lens really is a super wide on Fx. My lens was also unsharp on the upper left hand corner when I was using it on DX so I sent it to Tokina and they fixed it. So it worked quite well on FX but with limited focal range. The lens is more sensative to flare than the Nikkor 16-35 but it is very sharp.

Sigma 20-40 f2.8 A photojournalist lens from film era it exhibits the flaws inherent in a wide angle zoom but is actually a fun lens to use. Has lots of vignetting at 2.8 but is quite even when stopped down. Comparing a Sigma and Nikkor for sharpness can be misleading. This lens gives a nice rendering that is not sharp but is pleasing to my eye all the same. The vignetting is of no consequence to me as Adobe Camera Raw allows you to correct it or add it which I sometimes do for various reasons. This lens uses 82mm filters.

Sigma 24-60 f2.8 This is a fun compact lens maybe not ultra wide but has a useful focal range for the type of photos that I take ( kids, Landscapes). Vignetting is better than S 20-40 but worse than Nikkor 16-35. Pretty sharp in the Sigma way of rendering but has an unusual totally flat front lens element. With a HMC Hoya uv filter the lens was flaring like crazy. With out the filter everything is okay point it at the sun and you will get your ghost  but keeping the sun out of the frame and it is great.

Nikkor 25-50 F4 This is a great lens and gives a great rendering to images. It is sharper in the Nikon way than the Sigmas but has a great way with landscape photos. Unusual for a wideangle zoom the Bokeh is pleasing to my eyes. The range is a little odd but I find it very useful as a walkabout lens. i would love to take some full body portraits with this lens but have not done so yet. The 16-35 may be sharper and more flare resistant but there is a depth to the images produced by this lens that I love.

When I started in photography a 35mm lens on film was considered WA a 28mm was really wide and not considered appropriate for rendering people (distorted heads) on the perifery of the photo. More due to photographers not holding the film plane perpendicular to the subject. So a 24 and 20 were super wide. Now we are much beyond those days and people are somewhat used to the exagerated perspective and forshortening of extreem camera angles. Hope this was a help. D

-- hide signature --

Dennis

 dezinerd's gear list:dezinerd's gear list
Samsung NX300 Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow