onyxmodels
Member
I have a Nikon D-50 w/ the AF-S DX 18-55mm lens. I want to get something for wider shots and a good to decent zoom. Suggestions?
Glass Question
- Thread starter onyxmodels
- Start date
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
If you want to go wider then I would suggest either the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24
kenrockwell.com has a pretty comprehensive comparison review of the wide zooms available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to decent zoom is very very broad...
What is your price range?
My favorite lenses are:
10-20 (sigma)
17-55 2.8
28-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 vr
80-200 2.8
These are all EXCELLENT zooms
kenrockwell.com has a pretty comprehensive comparison review of the wide zooms available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to decent zoom is very very broad...
What is your price range?
My favorite lenses are:
10-20 (sigma)
17-55 2.8
28-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 vr
80-200 2.8
These are all EXCELLENT zooms
onyxmodels
Member
sorry for the late response J.O. 1500$ or under is my ceiling.
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
Under $1500 the best wide angle you can buy is the 17-35 f.2.8
The Nikon 12-24 is even wider but it is a DX only lens so it won't work on full frame.
The 17-55 DX is also a DX only lens, and while it gives you some extra focal length the 17-35 is a superior lens for wide angle landscape stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually now that I see that you already have the 18-55 that complicates things a bit.
That lens, especially at 18mm shoots like a slow prime. It is very sharp and very wide. Therefore if you want wider than that you are being pushed towards the exclusive ultra wide angle lenses.
The good news is that there are really only 5 choices, the bad news of course, there are 5 choices.
OK... here we go:
Tokina 12-24 (which Barry_S & Scharky swear by)
Sigma 10-20 (which I personally have fallen back in love with)
Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye
Nikon 12-24
Tamron 11-18
First of all let me say that I have used all but the Tamron but this is 100% just personal opinion.
The Nikon 12-24 felt awesome but it isn't worth 2x the price so right away I'm not a big fan (actually I was a/b compared to my Sigma to see if I would exchange). I think that if you are a Nikon fan boy or if you have the money to burn then Nikon could be a winner, but in my RAW images versus the Sigma I couldn't tell a difference
[note: Ken Rockwell found different results in his wide angle comparison, but I don't like Ken]
The Tokina... If Barry or Scharky emailed me and asked if I wanted to trade for my Sigma 10-20 I would take either of them up on the offer in a heart beat. They both have great copies (as I believe my copy is a great copy) and can really do great work with that lens. It is a constant f/4 and just really solid. I think it is a great performer, and while it has some CA it is just really solid.
Sigma... I love it. Those extra 2mm really matter to me and I don't miss the 4mm on the long end most of the time. I personally enjoy the Sigma and ended up with a great copy. I am also a fan of Sigma and believe that their 24-70 is one of the best lenses ever made, though.
Nikon 10.5 fisheye... I'm not a fisheye fan and even with some of the fisheye conversion tools I just never really got into this lens. It is really sharp and solid but for the money there were other things I prefered to own.
So really in my opinion it comes down to the Tokina versus Sigma.
Simply put:
Sigma will give you 2mm extra at the wide and not as much overlap with the 18mm-55mm you currently own (8mm versus 6mm of use). Beyond that there are people who think the Tokina is sharper but also has more CA. Then again, my Sigma is sharp.
Both lenses will distort and honestly I don't think you can go wrong with either.
If I could buy again I would most likely stick with this Sigma but I wouldn't hesitate to get the Tokina for a moment if I could find it in stock...
BTW: My Sigma ended up being $30 cheaper than the Tokina but I also couldn't find the Tokina in stock anywhere, it is that hot of a lens with a great reputation and following.
So yeah... that is sort of the situation... if you want to go wider there aren't a lot of options but the ones that are there make it tough.
Breakdown.
Nikon 10.5mm - if you want fisheye with your wide and want a prime
Nikon 12-24 - most likely the most professional and sharpest but 2x the cost
Sigma 10-20 - widest but it doesn't have a constant aperture rating... huge + for the...
Tokina 12-24 - constant f/4, very sharp, but has more CA
There is also a fisheye wide zoom but I haven't used that so I can't comment.
So while this is mostly opinion the best thing I can recommend is to get your hands on the Sigma and the Tokina and have at it and play and try to keep your feet out of the shots with these ultra wides.
That being said the Sigma has 2mm wider and the Tokina has a constant f/4 (and it is SHARP at f/4... my Sigma is sharpest stopped down a bit)
The Nikon 12-24 is even wider but it is a DX only lens so it won't work on full frame.
The 17-55 DX is also a DX only lens, and while it gives you some extra focal length the 17-35 is a superior lens for wide angle landscape stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually now that I see that you already have the 18-55 that complicates things a bit.
That lens, especially at 18mm shoots like a slow prime. It is very sharp and very wide. Therefore if you want wider than that you are being pushed towards the exclusive ultra wide angle lenses.
The good news is that there are really only 5 choices, the bad news of course, there are 5 choices.
OK... here we go:
Tokina 12-24 (which Barry_S & Scharky swear by)
Sigma 10-20 (which I personally have fallen back in love with)
Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye
Nikon 12-24
Tamron 11-18
First of all let me say that I have used all but the Tamron but this is 100% just personal opinion.
The Nikon 12-24 felt awesome but it isn't worth 2x the price so right away I'm not a big fan (actually I was a/b compared to my Sigma to see if I would exchange). I think that if you are a Nikon fan boy or if you have the money to burn then Nikon could be a winner, but in my RAW images versus the Sigma I couldn't tell a difference
[note: Ken Rockwell found different results in his wide angle comparison, but I don't like Ken]
The Tokina... If Barry or Scharky emailed me and asked if I wanted to trade for my Sigma 10-20 I would take either of them up on the offer in a heart beat. They both have great copies (as I believe my copy is a great copy) and can really do great work with that lens. It is a constant f/4 and just really solid. I think it is a great performer, and while it has some CA it is just really solid.
Sigma... I love it. Those extra 2mm really matter to me and I don't miss the 4mm on the long end most of the time. I personally enjoy the Sigma and ended up with a great copy. I am also a fan of Sigma and believe that their 24-70 is one of the best lenses ever made, though.
Nikon 10.5 fisheye... I'm not a fisheye fan and even with some of the fisheye conversion tools I just never really got into this lens. It is really sharp and solid but for the money there were other things I prefered to own.
So really in my opinion it comes down to the Tokina versus Sigma.
Simply put:
Sigma will give you 2mm extra at the wide and not as much overlap with the 18mm-55mm you currently own (8mm versus 6mm of use). Beyond that there are people who think the Tokina is sharper but also has more CA. Then again, my Sigma is sharp.
Both lenses will distort and honestly I don't think you can go wrong with either.
If I could buy again I would most likely stick with this Sigma but I wouldn't hesitate to get the Tokina for a moment if I could find it in stock...
BTW: My Sigma ended up being $30 cheaper than the Tokina but I also couldn't find the Tokina in stock anywhere, it is that hot of a lens with a great reputation and following.
So yeah... that is sort of the situation... if you want to go wider there aren't a lot of options but the ones that are there make it tough.
Breakdown.
Nikon 10.5mm - if you want fisheye with your wide and want a prime
Nikon 12-24 - most likely the most professional and sharpest but 2x the cost
Sigma 10-20 - widest but it doesn't have a constant aperture rating... huge + for the...
Tokina 12-24 - constant f/4, very sharp, but has more CA
There is also a fisheye wide zoom but I haven't used that so I can't comment.
So while this is mostly opinion the best thing I can recommend is to get your hands on the Sigma and the Tokina and have at it and play and try to keep your feet out of the shots with these ultra wides.
That being said the Sigma has 2mm wider and the Tokina has a constant f/4 (and it is SHARP at f/4... my Sigma is sharpest stopped down a bit)
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
BTW: If you want a good to decent zoom to go with the $500 wide lens (either Sigma or Tokina) check out the 80-200 f/2.8 from Nikon. The new 2 rings are only $800 and it is amazing...
SomewhereinLA
Well-known member
Get the Tokina 12-24, it's a very good lens , a little better than the sigma.
read this before you buy :
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
and this
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-focus.htm
read this before you buy :
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
and this
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-focus.htm
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
As I said, I would take Ken Rockwell's opinion with a grain of salt.
Furthermore, I disagree that the Tokina is a better lens on the Sigma. It depends on the specific use. If overall width of image is important how can you for a moment claim that a lens that is 2mm (or 3mm in actual use) actually a better lens?
The Tokina is a faster lens and depending on the use it is regarded as a sharper lens... but I have gotten sharper results from the Sigma than I did on the Nikon.
Furthermore, at equal focal distances the Sigma has lower distortion than the Tokina.
That being said, if you look at what I said, I still would trade my Sigma for the Tokina that either Barry or Scharky own because those are excellent copies.
Finally, for the CA and sharpness questions, here is a simple snapshot from a while ago...
This is the Sigma 10-20mm at 10mm [this is a 4mb file, jpg out of camera]
I have no idea what mode I was shooting in since these were mostly just me screwing around...
Look at the sharpness of this (zooming into 200% and still no CA)
----------------------------------------
To the original poster, check out both lenses, but regardless of which you purchase you will be happy.
Blanket statements like 'this is better' are just generally wrong though and not accurate, or at least as accurate as Ken Rockwell bashing a piece of gear without ever using it.
Furthermore, I disagree that the Tokina is a better lens on the Sigma. It depends on the specific use. If overall width of image is important how can you for a moment claim that a lens that is 2mm (or 3mm in actual use) actually a better lens?
The Tokina is a faster lens and depending on the use it is regarded as a sharper lens... but I have gotten sharper results from the Sigma than I did on the Nikon.
Furthermore, at equal focal distances the Sigma has lower distortion than the Tokina.
That being said, if you look at what I said, I still would trade my Sigma for the Tokina that either Barry or Scharky own because those are excellent copies.
Finally, for the CA and sharpness questions, here is a simple snapshot from a while ago...
This is the Sigma 10-20mm at 10mm [this is a 4mb file, jpg out of camera]
I have no idea what mode I was shooting in since these were mostly just me screwing around...
Look at the sharpness of this (zooming into 200% and still no CA)
----------------------------------------
To the original poster, check out both lenses, but regardless of which you purchase you will be happy.
Blanket statements like 'this is better' are just generally wrong though and not accurate, or at least as accurate as Ken Rockwell bashing a piece of gear without ever using it.
onyxmodels
Member
you've opened my eyes quite a bit....lemme see if this will help in my decision. I primarily shoot models (swimsuit /lingerie mostly) and few concerts/car shows, etc. Considering that, will my choices be narrowed down a bit?
