Looking for a bit more wideangle on my D90....Tokina perhaps?

I'm using a D90 with the AFS 35mm F1.8 lens most of the time - it's great for indoor shots in museums and the narrow depth of field for still life.

Now I'm shooting outside I only wish it was a more wideangle for those landscape pics.

I've done some research on the internet and with my budget I see the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF PRO DX as an option. Reviews seem to be generally very good and it's not a bad price (I wouldn't need the mark II version since the first one will auto focus on my D90 I believe). Also, the range on a cropped sensor camera like my D90 would be pretty good for me, giving me the option of taking landscapes and even 'normal' pics at the 24mm (36mm) length.

My questions are:

1. Is the image quality anywhere near that of the AFS 35mm F1.8? I guess I've been spoilt with this (I also have the AF 50mm F1.8D). I don't intend to have gigantic prints but is there a big difference in IQ?

2. I can go for the 11-16mm F2.8 Tokina at a push - is this noticeably better than the 12-24mm or are we talking about small inprovements in IQ? The range might be a little limiting with the 11-16mm, but if it was defintely better in IQ I would go for it.

3. Any other lenses in the £400 - £500 range that would be a good alternative?

I don't need an UW lens - just the wider angle....something equivalent to 24-30mm at the shortest end would be fine.

Thanks for any help/advice!

I haven't tried the Tokina 12-24mm lens yet, but I tend to use my 11-16mm as two primes in one (about half of my shots with it are at 11mm and the rest are at 16mm) and is quite sharp when stepped down a bit.

I purchased it when I still had my 18-200mm, so I didn't want a lot of overlap between the two. Now that I sold the 18-200mm, I'm kind of missing the 24mm focal length a bit and my AI 24mm f/2s sort of fills that niche.

Anyway, I don't think you'll go wrong with the 12-24mm, unless if that absolutely have to have that extra 1mm. Also, unless if you take a lot of pictures in really low light, upping the ISO with the 12-24mm would work unless if you are already at 3200.

Thanks. I also have the AIS 24mm F2.8 prime, and while this is a superb lens, it does not meter on the D90. I don't actually mind setting aperture/shutter speed by hand but it can get a bit tiresome and I miss the speed of autofocus.

There is another old lens out there - an AF 20mm F2.8D, which would AF on my camera and at 30mm would be fine, but it's pretty expensive and I haven't seen many reviews of it.

Have you tried the Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED DX? It's less than $175 used. The lens speed may not meet your needs, but it worth giving it a try.

I had the 12-24mm for a while. I eventually sold it and now have the 11-16mm. It doesn't get a ton of use (I often have a 17-50 Tamron mounted). But I think it's fantastic. I thought the 12-24 was great too!

I also have the 35mm 1.8, but have only had it for a short time (Since Father's Day).

I think you would be happy with whatever one you get. As was mentioned, if you need the range and not the the large aperture then the 12-24 makes sense. I wanted the large aperture for low light applications, some low light action.

They are both sharp lenses, I love the results I have gotten. I have not compared to the 35mm results.

--
Tim
http://myfotoguy.zenfolio.com - Gallery
http://www.my-fotoguy.com/ - Tips and Technique

I had 11-16 Tokina and now I have Tokina 12-24. they are both great wide angle lenses but don't expect quality of 35 prime, which I also have and love.

35 1.8 is great for portraits and general art of photography
12-24/11-16 is great for landscapes

The dissapointing thing is that I thought I could use 11-16 and 12-24 for people shots indoors but it's distorting faces if people are not exactly in the center. Software distortion correction does not help, still people look flat, like cartoon, not the same as my 18-105. Now, I ordered 16-85 for indoor shooting, and I know my D5000 will automatically correct the distortion at 16mm. A lot of overlap but it's fun.

Every lens serves specific purpose.

I'm kind of spoiled by having a D300, so I can set it up as a non-CPU lens and just need to remember to change the setting when I go between that and my other non-CPU lenses. Even then, I always go manual with aperture and shutter speed.

I tried out the AF 20mm f/2.8D and seemed quite nice, but not as wide as I liked (again, I still had my 18-200mm at that time). That's why I opted for the 11-16mm.

If you can stretch your budget a bit, the best ultra-wide right now for DX in daylight is the Sigma 8-16mm. Sharp, sharp sharp (all the way to the corners, esp. at F/8), and goes to 8mm (which is really wide, if you ever want to play with a really wide lens). It's only real "disadvantage" is the fact you can't use filters on it.

I also own the Tokina 11-16mm and the Sigma is sharper. I still have the Tokina because it goes to F/2.8 (2 stops faster at 16mm), so for interior/lowlight work I use it over the Sigma. But the Sigma 8-16mm is really, really nice, probably the best ultra-wide I've seen so far.

Thanks for all the advice. I guess what I'm looking for is again, just one lens that is around 30-35mm (after the 1.6 cropping factor) which has great image quality and is fast (F2.8 or less). This is because a lot of my pics have been in lower light conditions like museums. The new 16-35mm F4 looks very nice but is outside my budget.

However, I might have to get a lens that I can use in good light, outdoors, and forget about the fast aperture, and use it solely for landscape pics, and then switch back to the 35mm for low light and people pics.

Just a little nitpick, but the Nikon DX bodies are 1.5x crop rather than 1.6x crop of a Canon.

Another option would be Sigma's 17-50mm f/2.8 (~25.5-75mm effective on DX) or their 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (~25.5-105mm effective on DX). The former might be outside of your budget while the latter might squeeze in (US$680 MSRP, probably around $580-600 street). Both have optical stabilization to help out in low light as well as having a wide maximum aperture.

The only drawback with most of the lenses mentioned is that they are built for crop bodies and would lose a portion of their usefulness if/when you go full-frame. Just wanted to note that in case you were thinking about upgrading at a later date.

Sorry, you're right - I meant 1.5

The new Sigma 17-50 F2.8 looks very promising and I might be able to stretch to it if I can find a dealer who is selling it cheaper.

Just a general question about optical stabilisation (since I've only ever used primes!) :

Sigma claims a 4 stop advantage with the OS. If I was shooting in darker conditions (for example, a museum) would the OS on this lens at say F4 be more useful than me using a faster lens like my 35mm F1.8 (wide open or at F2).....would the pics be sharper with the OS?

While marketing material will say VR/OS will give you a 4 stop advantage, I wouldn't go past 3 if you want a higher good/bad picture ratio.

VR/OS will help with overall camera or lens shake, but won't help with objects that are moving or if the camera has problems auto-focusing on the object. If you are able to have a good stance and hold on the camera and lens, that and VR/OS will help you improve your chances of getting a sharp picture.

Also, VR/OS should not be used at higher shutter speeds (like 1/500) as the VR/OS action in the lens won't be quick enough and can cause additional blurring.

I have the Tokina 12-24, and am quite happy with it. It's adequately sharp I think, though a bit soft at the edges, and the colors and contrast are good, to my eyes anyway. I also have the first version, no motor, and it focuses in an instant on the D90. Here's an example (cropped from the D90, but not resized)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54311838@N00/4320074974/sizes/o/in/photostream/

I've had mine for maybe 3 weeks now, and have found it quite satisfactory. While it doesn't have VR, aka OS, it's much more lightweight than the Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 (can't compare the 2, have never used the Nikkor), and the AF is very quick.

The Tokina is great and fits nicely under the 35 you have. Like someone else mentioned, having 24 in a DX wide is very convenient when people become the subject.

However, if you aren't needing a UWA, I'd recommend the Tamron f/2.8 17-50 screw-drive as a good walk-around lens.

I have the Nikor 18-70AFS and th Tokina 12-24 pro II
I like them both for my needs. (D-300)

Personally : between Tokina 116 and 124 - the first one is for speed, the second is for range. This is it.
Both great (assuming good samples), both have weaknesses.

I shoot 124 since I need the range more.

Nik

questionlp said:

I purchased it when I still had my 18-200mm, so I didn't want a lot of overlap between the two. Now that I sold the 18-200mm, I'm kind of missing the 24mm focal length a bit and my AI 24mm f/2s sort of fills that niche.

Click to expand...

I did the same thing, sold my 18-200 and had a gap between my Tokina 11-16 and my 50 1.4G. Lived like this for a while and finally picked up the 16-85vr which I am very pleased with. The extra 2mm is great and much less distortion at the wide end.

Anyway, back to the op's question. I'd probably recommend a wider range than the 11-16 if you haven't shot a lot of wide angle. And if I was going to buy in that range I'd buy the Nikon 10-24 3.5-4.5.

Best,

Don

I used a Tokina 12-24 DX for a couple of years. It was a very sharp lens, also very solid, and very nice to handle. Focused perfectly. However, there was one big issue, which was flare. After it had ruined a whole sunset session due to extreme flaring, I replaced it with the Nikon variant.

Lots of choices! I'm going to try out some of the suggested lenses at a big camera store. I'll take my D90 plus SD card and take some sample shots with each lens, then see how they come out when I get home.

I've never used a really wide angle lens before so this might present some problems re: composition that I need to think about. I think most lenses will be perfectly fine with my D90, it's just a matter of how they feel and getting used to a 'bigger' lens after shooting with the small primes.