Reading mode: Light Dark

Ultrawide DX options?

Go to last post
B

Big Ga

Forum Pro
Messages
18,643
Solutions
4
Reaction score
1,960
Location
Carmarthenshire, UK
Hi folks,

I'm contemplating getting an ultrawide in DX. Quite a few choices! Old uncle Ken's site has been fairly informative, but then he always puts his own personal slant on things which doesn't necessarily tally up with your own needs, so basically, I'd love it if you could give any comments or experiences on any of the ultrawides available, you know,
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 12-24
Tamron 11-18
Tamron 10-24
Sigma 10-20
Nikon 12-24
etc

I know someone is going to ask 'what exactly are you going to use it for' but that's the problem, I'd possibly end up using it for a load of different things depending what its good at, which I'm thinking not one particular one does everything best at !?! so as some pointers, I'd be looking at:
Lighness for taking on pleasure trips
Distortion if I was using it for serious architectural type work.
Corner sharpness for serious work - but could live with having to stop down

Center sharpness wide open if I was using it in low light event shooting (and here I could probably live with softer corners)
Ergonomics/build
And last but not least, cost!

At this moment in time, a light but reasonably decent quality holiday lens is probably the main aim ... but I can't help thinking the f2.8 of the 11-16 tokina might come in handy for some wedding stuff .....

Go on .... tell me what you think if you have, or have looked into any/all of the above.

Cheers
Gareth
 
One vote here for the Tokina 12-24 f4.

I think it also depends on your camera. I have the D90, so with such great high ISO performance I was not concerned about shooting with the f4.

I can tell you that I am very happy with this lens, and am impressed with its sharpness at everything I have used it. It is so much sharper than my 18-200VR at those lengths.

I would have rathered the Nikon 12-24, but didn't think it was worth double. I too thought alot about the 11-16 but was afraid I would be disappointed with the very small range when travelling. Thought about the Sigma 10-20 but after digging read too many "bad copy" issues I did not want to deal with it.

It seems to me the Tokina is very well built. I also like the mechanism for AF / MF and the manual focus works great.

Hope this helps.

Gary
--
Nikon D90, 18-200VR, 50 1.8, SB600, Tokina 12-24
 
I've been happy with my 12-24mm as well. I mainly got it for a wider option for landscapes, so the aperture was not a big issue, although having faster glass is always a nice option for the creative choices it gives you. If the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 was available at the time, I would have weighed the pros and cons of each and may have gone for the faster glass. From my research at the time, the Tokina was the best option of the 3rd party wides.

The Nikon 12-24mm just didn't hold much appeal for me either at the time, and even less today, at least new. Just far too expensive as an interim solution until FX was here and affordable. Now that FX and the 14-24mm f/2.8 are here, the 12-24mm just seems like a niche product destined to go away. Maybe if I could find a used one for around the price of the Tokina new, I'd think about it for the build quality.

There are a couple of nits with the Tokina:

1) The way you switch to manual focus. I'm spoiled with these newer Nikon lenses that let you fine tune MF even in AF mode.

2) The hood stores very oddly on the lens and makes it had to fit into my bag. I have to store the hood separate from the lens.
--
http://rodneyboles.zenfolio.com
 
Another vote for Tokina 12-24. I give mine full marks for build quality and overalll sharpness I tried several sigma 10-20s from shops and was unimpressed- bad distortion and softness at the corners anda record of poor quality control issues.
 
Big Ga said:
Hi folks,

I'm contemplating getting an ultrawide in DX. Quite a few choices!
Old uncle Ken's site has been fairly informative, but then he always
puts his own personal slant on things which doesn't necessarily tally
up with your own needs, so basically, I'd love it if you could give
any comments or experiences on any of the ultrawides available, you
know,
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 12-24
Tamron 11-18
Tamron 10-24
Sigma 10-20
Nikon 12-24
etc

I know someone is going to ask 'what exactly are you going to use it
for' but that's the problem, I'd possibly end up using it for a load
of different things depending what its good at, which I'm thinking
not one particular one does everything best at !?! so as some
pointers, I'd be looking at:
Lighness for taking on pleasure trips
Distortion if I was using it for serious architectural type work.
Corner sharpness for serious work - but could live with having to
stop down
Center sharpness wide open if I was using it in low light event
shooting (and here I could probably live with softer corners)
Ergonomics/build
And last but not least, cost!

At this moment in time, a light but reasonably decent quality holiday
lens is probably the main aim ... but I can't help thinking the f2.8
of the 11-16 tokina might come in handy for some wedding stuff .....

Go on .... tell me what you think if you have, or have looked into
any/all of the above.

Cheers
Gareth
--
Click to expand...
 
Big Ga said:
Hi folks,

I'm contemplating getting an ultrawide in DX. Quite a few choices!
Old uncle Ken's site has been fairly informative, but then he always
puts his own personal slant on things which doesn't necessarily tally
up with your own needs, so basically, I'd love it if you could give
any comments or experiences on any of the ultrawides available, you
know,
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 12-24
Tamron 11-18
Click to expand...
Haven't used these, the 11-16 is most likely the sharpest of the bunch.
Big Ga said:
Tamron 10-24
Click to expand...
Looks promising. Not in stock at my store yet, so I haven't played with it.
Big Ga said:
Sigma 10-20
Click to expand...
Love this one. Image quality is excellent, Nikon copies fair better than the Canon ones I've tried. The HSM is fast and quiet.
Big Ga said:
Nikon 12-24
Click to expand...
I have gotten great results from this, but price is too high, and I can't see any real difference in IQ to justify it over the Sigma, that's my opinion. Others are welcome to disagree.
Big Ga said:
etc

I know someone is going to ask 'what exactly are you going to use it
for' but that's the problem, I'd possibly end up using it for a load
of different things depending what its good at, which I'm thinking
not one particular one does everything best at !?! so as some
pointers, I'd be looking at:
Lighness for taking on pleasure trips
Click to expand...
I'd have to check the weight at the various company's websites; sufficed to say that in using the Nikon 12-24 and Sigma 10-20, neither of these are very heavy ( 1lb + -) and shouldn't be an issue for packing around all day. The Tokina 11-16 is the heaviest, but still not bad.
Big Ga said:
Distortion if I was using it for serious architectural type work.
Click to expand...
Not sure.... check popphoto.com & photozone.de
Big Ga said:
Corner sharpness for serious work - but could live with having to
stop down
Click to expand...
Corner sharpness, for that, I think you'll do best with the Tokina 11-16. You could stop it down to f/4 and it should be excellent accross the frame.
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1116_28_canon/mtf.gif
[ From photozone.de ]
Big Ga said:
Center sharpness wide open if I was using it in low light event
shooting (and here I could probably live with softer corners)
Click to expand...
All should be sharp in the middle. From my own experience, both the Nikon and Sigma are quite sharp in the middle, at all focal lengths.
Big Ga said:
Ergonomics/build
Click to expand...
Again the Tokina is probably the best build, Nikons is excellent. I also like the Sigma. All of these lenses are actually built fairly well (Tamron 10-24 ?? haven't held, so I reserve judgement on that one).
Big Ga said:
And last but not least, cost!
Click to expand...
The Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 10-24 will probably be the least expensive. Value-wise the Sigma is very appealing.
Big Ga said:
At this moment in time, a light but reasonably decent quality holiday
lens is probably the main aim ... but I can't help thinking the f2.8
of the 11-16 tokina might come in handy for some wedding stuff .....

Go on .... tell me what you think if you have, or have looked into
any/all of the above.

Cheers
Gareth
--
Click to expand...
Shots taken with the Sigma 10-20mm, (Canon mount, I was all I could get at the time....)
Canon XTi, Sigma 10-20mm: 13mm, 1/125 sec., f/10, EV +0.7, ISO 100

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hd7x65-A5Ig/SNQhQ1fCwoI/AAAAAAAAAJY/h4eipv9wZQ4/Windows_sm.jpg

Canon XTi, Sigma 10-20mm: 11mm, 1/125 sec., f/9, EV +0.7, ISO 100

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hd7x65-A5Ig/SNQhJcj92UI/AAAAAAAAAI8/AE4jGEYFYBA/PhotoOfWindows_byShadows_sm.jpg

-- NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );
 
illy said:
Tokina 12-24mm here, nice and sharp at F8 and pretty good in the
corners, got my copy for £243, NX2 gets rid of any CA's automatically.
Click to expand...
Hells bells ... I'm kind of leaning towards the 11-16 because of the ultimate quality thing, however £243 is a killer price! mind telling me where ???

Cheers
G.
 
Faster glass is better glass. Tokina 11-16mm f:2.8 Great for available light indoors and dimly light theaters.
--
Steve M
 
--

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. Edmund Burke
 
http://www.photozone.de
and here:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

FWIW, I'm quite pleased with my Sigma 10-20, though I've not had the opportunity to compare its performance to that of other available UW options. Very good bang for the buck though, IMO.

Steve
Big Ga said:
Hi folks,

I'm contemplating getting an ultrawide in DX. Quite a few choices!
Old uncle Ken's site has been fairly informative, but then he always
puts his own personal slant on things which doesn't necessarily tally
up with your own needs, so basically, I'd love it if you could give
any comments or experiences on any of the ultrawides available, you
know,
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 12-24
Tamron 11-18
Tamron 10-24
Sigma 10-20
Nikon 12-24
etc

I know someone is going to ask 'what exactly are you going to use it
for' but that's the problem, I'd possibly end up using it for a load
of different things depending what its good at, which I'm thinking
not one particular one does everything best at !?! so as some
pointers, I'd be looking at:
Lighness for taking on pleasure trips
Distortion if I was using it for serious architectural type work.
Corner sharpness for serious work - but could live with having to
stop down
Center sharpness wide open if I was using it in low light event
shooting (and here I could probably live with softer corners)
Ergonomics/build
And last but not least, cost!

At this moment in time, a light but reasonably decent quality holiday
lens is probably the main aim ... but I can't help thinking the f2.8
of the 11-16 tokina might come in handy for some wedding stuff .....

Go on .... tell me what you think if you have, or have looked into
any/all of the above.

Cheers
Gareth
--
Click to expand...
 
SteveM7i said:
http://www.photozone.de
and here:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

FWIW, I'm quite pleased with my Sigma 10-20, though I've not had the
opportunity to compare its performance to that of other available UW
options. Very good bang for the buck though, IMO.

Steve
Click to expand...
When I was looking around my shortlist of two was the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 10-20. I read many reviews (of course) and in the end bought the Sigma and am very pleased with it, although I haven't examined image quality in minute detail.

Regarding focussing on Sigmas, I haven't noticed any errors on the 10-20 and I have the 120-300 f2.8 which I tested quite a bit when I bought it and found it to focus accurately.

Mark

http://www.mark-dyer.smugmug.com/
 
here's my verdict, from a very old post of mine:

Generally, I've suggested to those asking my personal advice, if you tend more towards landscapes, get the Sigma 10-20; if it's more architecture, then the Tokie or the Nikon (depending on budget and usage).

The only downside of this lens has to due w/ flare/reflections. CA is a bit more of a prollem than any other lens I own. And it can get internal reflections on long nighttime panos of cityscapes (a royal PITB IMHO). Well, vignetting can sometimes be seen at 12mm when using a CPL or other filter w/ my 77mm > 82mm step-up ring (depends on which filter and its thickness).
The strong points:
  • very little distortion, even wide open
  • easily correctable distortion thru software
  • (IMHO) sharper wide open than the Sigma 10-20, w/ slightly better detail rendition
  • I think f/4 is fairly usable for city/street shooting, but usually I find f/8 to be the 'sweet spot' and most often aperture speed isn't a prollem when I'm shooting this lens- or else I need A LOT faster like an f/1.4 or f/1.8.
  • Build quality and edge-to-edge sharpness are excellent
  • value-to-performance beats the Nikon 12-24/4 EASILY IMHO at half the cost
i've shot some w/ the sigma 10-20 and the slight 'moustaching' effect of horizons can be difficult to 'fix' in PP (IMHO). especially for something like complex architecture... for landscapes it is easier (generally) to heal or even leave it as relatively unnoticeable...

maybe that helps?

--
~ david
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prodesma/
my website: http://kaptures.net/
 
Faster glass is only better for some things, not generally.

You have to factor in price, weight, resolution, CA, distortion, availability,
and most importantly - use...

For your stated use - yes I will agree the 11-16 serves better in that environment.
Overall, I would say F2.8 is a wash, especially with ISO's of 1600+ common
today.
Figero said:
Faster glass is better glass. Tokina 11-16mm f:2.8 Great for
available light indoors and dimly light theaters.
--
Steve M
Click to expand...
 
I looked at all of these quite a bit several months ago (Tamron 10-24) was not

out yet. and for my uses (general walk around, people, landscapes, buildings, cars,
studio, and theater) that the range of 12-24 at F4 outweighed the one stop,

shorter range of the tokina 11-16. Tight call - and I am still planning on the 11-16
at some point this year.

Since I have had the tokina 12-24, I have not regretted the decision. The extra
reach has indeed served me far more than the extra stop. But, again, for my
uses, this was the "right" choice to start with.

Really, we are fortunate to have such a problem as too many good choices here.

Outside of the Tamron 10-24, (reports are not encouraging), I don't think you
could really pick one that won't do a good job and give you the width you are
looking for...

As for the 10,11, or 12 baseline. I noticed that it amounted to not that much,
except in that rare instance where the extra 2 or 3 degrees of view mattered

in a landscape I was attempting. Then I split the picture into 2 or three shooting
parts and stitched it.
 
Good info so far - thanks to all.

A wide tends to be used a lot for landscapes and buildings, so while ideally you'd get a straight horizon for example, the next best thing is a slightly curved one that's fairly even and not a mustache type where its a bugger to correct in post if its a critical thing.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the 11-16 tokina has very easily correctable distortion - better even than the nikkor. Is this also the case with the 12-24?

TIA
Gareth

PS - Canon and Nikon have increased their prices (or are going to imminently) - anyone heard any news about the other 3rd party lens manufacturers ??
 
Big Ga said:
illy said:
Tokina 12-24mm here, nice and sharp at F8 and pretty good in the
corners, got my copy for £243, NX2 gets rid of any CA's automatically.
Click to expand...
Hells bells ... I'm kind of leaning towards the 11-16 because of the
ultimate quality thing, however £243 is a killer price! mind telling
me where ???
Click to expand...
I have them both, and for whatever reasons I would not let my 12-24 go. Maybe I was just lucky with the good copy but it is unfailing. The 11-16 is also not bad but in one to one comparison I do not see it as any better than 12-24 (except it is faster and slightly wider). Not like uncle Ken describes it, almost identically close - maybe, better - not. If I may ask, don't you already have 10-20, or am I mistaken?

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen
 
Big Ga said:
illy said:
Tokina 12-24mm here, nice and sharp at F8 and pretty good in the
corners, got my copy for £243, NX2 gets rid of any CA's automatically.
Click to expand...
Hells bells ... I'm kind of leaning towards the 11-16 because of the
ultimate quality thing, however £243 is a killer price! mind telling
me where ???

Cheers
G.
Click to expand...
it was an ebay special i got over a year ago, saw the price and hit the buy it now button, try and find the seller and see if they still have them, got a good sharp copy too :)
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard Murdey
Help me pick out a ultrawide zoom lens!
2
Replies
29
Views
9K
Bernard Delley
B
D
Ultrawide lens under $250 for Nikon APS-C?
Replies
6
Views
1K
DVF Photography
DVF Photography
F
Asking for suggestions for wide angle DX lens
Replies
14
Views
2K
Kenster63
Kenster63
D
Building a lens line-up?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Martin_99
M
M
Wide angle choice for a APSC sensor
Replies
7
Views
535
Ryan Schwartz
Ryan Schwartz

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top