I'm confused about choosing a super wide angle glass

Ben Tomohiku

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
AR, US
Currently I have a 16-85 f3.5-5.6, and a 80-200 f2.8, their angle are not wide enough for me to take real good landscape, I meant they did take good pictures. So I am thinking about to get one of these glasses for my D300S, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, Tokina 12-24MM F/4.0 Pro II , Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D. I'm not really sure that which one should I get, all of them seem pretty nice.
Cheers.
 
I have the first version of the Tokina 12-24 F/4 and like it a lot. Its build quality is far superior to the Sigma and most other lenses. Although it woult be nice to have some more wide angle. Maybe 11 or 10 mm.

The Nikon 18-35 does not give you any benefits over your 16-85 since it is an FX-lens. But you should have a look at the Nikon AF-S DX 10-24 F/3,5-4,5 or the Tokina 11-16 F/2,8. The latter one would be my choice right now.
kimble
 
I have the Tokina 11-16, and while I absolutely love it for architecture (both indoors and outdoors), I am not too fond of it for landscape (find it a bit "dull"). From what I hear, the xx-24 guys are a better bet, but I have not tested any of them.

Tom
 
I have the first version of the Tokina 12-24 F/4 and like it a lot. Its build quality is far superior to the Sigma and most other lenses. Although it woult be nice to have some more wide angle. Maybe 11 or 10 mm.

The Nikon 18-35 does not give you any benefits over your 16-85 since it is an FX-lens. But you should have a look at the Nikon AF-S DX 10-24 F/3,5-4,5 or the Tokina 11-16 F/2,8. The latter one would be my choice right now.
kimble
Thanks man, i think im gonna get a Tokina 1224 f/4! thanks for your help
 
thankx a lot, BTW what are the differences between Tokina 12-24MM F/4.0 Pro and Tokina 12-24MM F/4.0 Pro II? the older model is hundred bucks cheaper than the newer model, should i get PRO or PRO II?
 
thankx a lot, BTW what are the differences between Tokina 12-24MM F/4.0 Pro and Tokina 12-24MM F/4.0 Pro II? the older model is hundred bucks cheaper than the newer model, should i get PRO or PRO II?
The II model has the internal focus motor. The original uses the geared focus mechanism driven by the camera body. The II also has some extra coatings on the lens elements which allegedly reduce flair.

For what it is worth, I have the 11-16 and like it very much.
 
awesome pictures!!!!
 
Currently I have a 16-85 f3.5-5.6, and a 80-200 f2.8, their angle are not wide enough for me to take real good landscape, I meant they did take good pictures. So I am thinking about to get one of these glasses for my D300S, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, Tokina 12-24MM F/4.0 Pro II , Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D. I'm not really sure that which one should I get, all of them seem pretty nice.
Cheers.
The Nikon 10-24 is a very sharp and versatile lens. It's my choice. Here are a couple of recent shots with the lens:

Landscapes:

@f/29 http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggaley/5427345306/in/photostream/

@f/11 http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggaley/5427344108/in/photostream/

Architecture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggaley/5391791312/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggaley/5391187809/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggaley/5391791374/in/photostream/

--
My blog: http://www.johnbaggaley.com
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggaley/
 
I used to use the Sig 10-20 on my Sony a700 and thought it was good value for money although a bit overrated as very soft until about f8. I also sometimes wished it could go to 24. I thus got the Nikon 10-24 when i recently switched to a d300s and I much prefer this as a wide angle lens although its a bit more expensive than the Sigma. I find it much sharper and the extra 4mm at the long end comes in v handy.

I dont really find myself needing 2.8 on my wide angle shots else I would have gone with one of the Tokinas or perhaps the 12-24 f4 lens from nikon.....

Cheers
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top