help with lenses

i am wanting to either upgrade my 18-55 f3.5-5.6 to a 17-55 f2.8 or get uwa in the form of either a 12-24 f4 , 14-24 f2.8 of a sigma 10-20 f3.5

i want the width for landscape and architecture. i might rent a few lenses first to have a play. i like the range and versatility of the 17-55 but it is not giving be much extra width. any thoughts would be great.

thanks

tcoley said:

i am wanting to either upgrade my 18-55 f3.5-5.6 to a 17-55 f2.8 or get uwa in the form of either a 12-24 f4 , 14-24 f2.8 of a sigma 10-20 f3.5

i want the width for landscape and architecture. i might rent a few lenses first to have a play. i like the range and versatility of the 17-55 but it is not giving be much extra width. any thoughts would be great.

Click to expand...

Given your existing lenses, you have a DX camera. If you're staying with DX, there's no sense in getting a 14-24, which is an expensive full-frame lens.

If you want wide angle, I'd go with something that goes down to 10mm. When I reach for a wide angle zoom, I want to be able to get wide . I have the 10-24 Nikkor and find it quite good (And yes, most of the time 10mm is too wide. But it's there if I need it). I believe that it's optically as good as the 12-24. Since the 10-24 is wider and cheaper I don't see much benefit to the 12-24. I don't know anything about the Sigma.

A 17-55 is an entirely different direction. As you note, it's not much wider than what you have but it's faster and sharper. No real benefits for landscape and architecture, where you tend to shoot at f/8 anyway, but a whole lot better for things that are moving.
--
Leonard Migliore

Renting first makes a lot of sense to me. UWA is a funny range -- some folks can't mung-up a scene enough, and love to keystone everything. They're delighted with UWAs, although I feel for the folks who are subjected to their photos.

Some folks are real artists with a UWA. These people are few and far between. You may want to test out what floats your boat before investing in any possibility. I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4, which I find plenty wide for my limited comfort with the focal range -- and I really value the ability to go up to almost-standard focal lengths if I want to. I don't use the Tokina a lot, but some of my favorite photos were taken with it. But UWAs are very demanding in my experience, and the difference of a couple of mm FL is substantial in the UWA range. Also, a good PP package is pretty much of a necessity -- no matter how careful I am, it seems that I always need to tweak the perspective of my indoor architecture shots. But maybe that's just me.

Some people who have more of a feel for the range may enjoy something like the Sigma 8-16, while others may decide that that wonderful (though very pricey) Nikon 14-24 is plenty wide for them -- and there is a magic in that lens that defies objective description. When it comes to maximum aperture, your use model will be most important in determining how much light you want to have. The 14-24 is an f/2.8, as is the Tokina 11-16. For some folks, that's important. For others, they are more interested in stopping down to get even deeper DOF, and have no interest in the brightest glass.

The point is that you will pretty quickly come to an understanding of what you want to maximize in your choice of UWA lens, but only once you've gotten your hands on one for a while. So renting seems very sensible to me.

If you are on DX, I think the 12-24 or 10-xx zooms are a better choice than the 14-24.

I have both 12-24 F4 (Nikon) and 14-24 F2.8. I definitely prefer the 12-24 on my D300 (and the 14-24 on my D700).

The 14-24 doesn't offer me any advantages on DX, but it does cause me to constantly look for flare problems, and it's harder to pack. The 12-24 seems just as good from 14-24 on DX as the 14-24F2.8, has excellent flare control, is smaller for packing and takes filters. I hear the Nikon 10-24 is about like the 12-24.

Both the 12-24 and the 10-24 (from what I've heard) are a bit soft wide open in the corners, but sharpen up nicely zoomed in slightly (at 14 on the 12-24) and 12 on the 10-24).

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net

sorry i should of said i was shooting on a D90. from what i have read of your replies i should choose between the 10-24 f3.5-4.5 or 12-24 f4. can any one tell me the real world difference in the two lenses. is one better than the other?
Thanks

Just a note for the Sigma, if you go with the 10-20 do consider the f/4 version instead of the f/3.5 for better image quality and more standard 77mm filter threads.

PHXAZCRAIG said:

The 14-24 doesn't offer me any advantages on DX, but it does cause me to constantly look for flare problems, and it's harder to pack.

Click to expand...

True on the flare part. I had to fab up some sun shade because the wideness of the lens often captured my cap in the photos with me standing to the side to shield it.





Still, it is a very sharp lens and fun to use. Extremely fast and accurate on focusing too. Filter use is limited to some after market units as it cannot accept any screw-ins. Never had an issue with size in packing, but I use a large Lowepro roller-bag too. I generally carry it via the hand-strap seen to the side on the RRS L-plate. It'll fit in my Slingshot backpack bag as shown if I'm on the motorcycle.

Oddly, that lens remains on my camera the most too. Thought I was a tele-shooter and got the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 first. Made a mistake and rarely use it anymore over the Nikkor 14-24mm if I'm inside buildings or outside shooting them.

The faster lenses tend to hit the focus faster too I've found. The focus triangles to the sides of the focus-lock on green dot rarely appear with the faster lenses. They tend to hunt back and forth more with the slower f/4 to f5.6 ones, imho. Sometimes that 'hunting action' ends up being not quite acceptable on final focus either.

Mack

First, you seem to be choosing between (1) expanding your range by acquiring a midrange zoom which is longer on the wide side vs. (2) buying a UWA.

Extending midrange zoom: DX 16-85 gives you equiv 24mm if that is wide enough. Half the price of the 17-55, where you are paying for speed but one silly millimeter less. Plus you get short tele on the other end.

Buying UWA: Get the older, and reputedly sharper, 10-20 f4-5.6 Sigma. It's $150 less that the 3.5. I have this lens, used it 60% of the time on Med cruise with stops in various fabled places, plenty sharp enough and great color transmission. There's curvature at the frame edges, more as you go wider but, if it bothers you, you can correct in PP.

Faced with the same issue - although I don't see it as either-or! - I got the 10-20 f4 and kept my trusty but bsolete 18-55. That's also the cheapest alternative, if you care about cost.

tcoley said:

sorry i should of said i was shooting on a D90. from what i have read of your replies i should choose between the 10-24 f3.5-4.5 or 12-24 f4. can any one tell me the real world difference in the two lenses. is one better than the other?

Click to expand...

The real-world difference between the two Nikon lenses comes down to 10mm being wider than 12. Small differences - the 12-24 is probably slightly better.

Compared to Tokina wide angles, in general, flare is much better controlled on the Nikons. (And flare is often an issue when shooting with ultra wides. Sun behind you: your shadow in the image. Sun not behind you: worry about flare)

The Nikons have 'complex' distortion (moustache type), if you are trying to correct in post. This is of concern for architecture where straight lines need to be straight, but doesn't really mean much otherwise. The Tokinas have 'not complex' (easily correctable) distortion.

I don't know about the Sigma, in terms of distortion or flare, but I do know that a lot of owners have said the older (and slower) 10-20 zoom was significantly sharper than the newer version.

In general, the Nikons have the best IQ, but you pay a good deal more to get it.

In comparing the 12-24 on DX to the 14-24, the 14-24 gives you F2.8. I don't find F2.8 to be of any particular use on such a wide angle. My 12-24 is quite sharp wide open at F4, but if you are shooting for maximum depth of field, you're probably going to be around F8 on any of these lenses, and the sharpness is probably fine on all of them.

Flare is a big deal to me. Here are some examples of it, on the 14-24. In the first example I have two shots from my D300, from almost the same spot, with 12-24 and 14-24. The 14-24 has flare, the 12-24 doesn't. I even through in a similar shot from my wife with her 18-200, which controlled flare very well.
http://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/14-24/index.html

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net