Best super wide lens??

hewhoknows

hewhoknows

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,077
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive had my Sigma 10-20mm for about a year now and it produced some pretty good images. Im now doing alot of property photography and have been wondering of there is a better super wide on the market that I should consider upgrading to in order to achieve the best possible results.

I have been looking at the Nikon 12-24, the Tokina 12-24 and the new Sigma 12-24.

Wondered if anyone who owns any of these lenses could give me a bit of user feedback to go with the reviews ive already read??

Thanks guys :thumbs:
 
Best? Discounting budget as a primary factor, Nikon 14-24mm, but you really need an FX camera to make full use of it.
 
redddraggon said:
Best? Discounting budget as a primary factor, Nikon 14-24mm, but you really need an FX camera to make full use of it.
Click to expand...

Sorry forgot to mention, no budget restrictions really but would like to keep it below £500. Plus I use a D90 so would have to suit a crop sensor
 
Last edited:
I have just switched from nikon16-35mm to 14-24mm. No regret for the switch except that I have to spend more after getting it. I have to give up all my 77mm filters and to be replaced with cokin pro-x series filters (I have problem getting from my country though). I have DIY filter holder but Still sourcing the filter, perhaps will get it during my trip to London next week.
 
I'd get a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or a Sigma 8-16 for sub £500 on a crop body.
 
Nikon 12-24 if you're flush or Tokina 12-24 if you have sub-£500 budget. used, both of these are bargains and they have amazing IQ. Tokky 11-16 is probably the only other competitor in the IQ stakes.....
 
Having read some reviews on the tokina 11-16mm it does seem like the best option, many sites claiming it to be the best uwa lens for a crop sensor. Apparently it's super sharp at 2.8 too.
 
Besides the Tokina theres also the Sigma 8-16, sposed to be very sharp indeed and its wider than anything else you can get on a crop. It can't take filters but I'm guessing thats less for a problem for propert than it is for landscapes?
 
Nikkor 12-24 with the caveat that it is not very very wide although wide enough for most people. I don't think there is much between that and the 11-16 to be honest and the Nikkor gives you a fair amount more of flexibility to use it as a walk around lens.

I'd personally go for the Tamron 10-24 though which I had and used while I was using Nikkor and loved to be honest.
 
If you are shooting property either of the Tokina's are good the 12-24 was my favorite due to the better zoom range. The Nikon's and I believe the Sigma lenses both have complex distortion which is more difficult to correct than the Tokina's simple barrel distortion. The Tokina's suffer a bit from CA but it is easy to correct.
 
Sigma 12-24 (old one) has no distortion at all, straight lines stay straight. Quite remarkable really, amazingly wide on FX but still usefully wide on DX. You do need to stop it down but it's very good for property/architecture due to the lack of distortion.
 
daugirdas said:
Had tokina 12-24mm and it was close to perfect (sold as now on FF). I've also used sigma 10-20 before and that left me wanting much more.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I felt when I used the sigma. I bought the Tokina after I sold my Nikon 12-24 and I couldn't tell any difference in IQ on the whole. Build wasn't quite up to that in the Nikon but it was close. People say 12mm isn't wide enough but I always found it a more realistic fov over 10mm....
 
Last edited:
I think it's going to be a choice between the two Tokina's to be honest. I like the fact the 11-16 stops down to 2.8 but like the additional reach the 12-24 gives.

As we as property I do alot of landscape stuff so that's a consideration too.
 
How come nobody mentions the properly wide 8-16mm, I really like mine. Tested it in the shop again the 10-20, the Nikon version and the Tokina...However you just can't beat those extra 2mm or 3mm at that end, especially when the purpose is to go wide....
 
dejongj said:
How come nobody mentions the properly wide 8-16mm, I really like mine. Tested it in the shop again the 10-20, the Nikon version and the Tokina...However you just can't beat those extra 2mm or 3mm at that end, especially when the purpose is to go wide....
Click to expand...

Probably for a number of reasons:

* For architectural stuff the barrel distortion at 8-10mm makes it a no-no so you end up using it in the 10-14mm range, which negates the reason for buying it in the first place.

* It's not a constant aperture lens and compared to the Tokinas and Nikons, it's at least stop slower at the narrow end.

* It cannot accept filters, a massive disadvantage for landscape users

Overall, it looks an impressive lens - that wide end would come in useful for impact editorial stuff - but for the majority of ultra-wide users, it's probably overkill :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Probably for a number of reasons:

* For architectural stuff the barrel distortion at 8-10mm makes it a no-no so you end up using it in the 10-14mm range, which negates the reason for buying it in the first place.

* It's not a constant aperture lens and compared to the Tokinas and Nikons, it's at least stop slower at the narrow end.

* It cannot accept filters, a massive disadvantage for landscape users

Overall, it looks an impressive lens - that wide end would come in useful for impact editorial stuff - but for the majority of ultra-wide users, it's probably overkill :)
Click to expand...

The Sigma at 8mm has pretty similar distortion to the Tokina at 11mm. Both are correctable as far as I know plus I'd question whether they would be an issue for the OP anyway doing property photography rather than say the insides of Cathedrals.

The lack of filters is ultimately what led to me going for the Canon 10-22 instead but again is the OP going to be looking to use filters for property photography?
 
I'd agree with specialman if im honest and Ive kinda discounted the 8-16 because of the reasons above. I do use my Siggy 10-20 for landscape and property stuff so the facility to be able to accept filters is a must. I would like a constant aperture from my new lens which again points me towards the Tokina 11-16 as its a constant 2.8 but im torn between that and the 12-24 as it gives that extra bit of reach??????
 
Only thing to be aware of with fast ultrawides is flare, they are all susceptible to it (even the 14-24).
 
I've had both the Sigma 10-20 & the Tokina 12-24 f4....

Out of the two I would certainly recommend the Tokina (I also used it on a D90 as well as the Sigma 10-20)
 
hewhoknows said:
Sorry forgot to mention, no budget restrictions really but would like to keep it below £500. Plus I use a D90 so would have to suit a crop sensor
Click to expand...

No budget restrictions means a Nikon 24mm PC-E 3.5, but £500 can obviously be quite restrictive depending on when/if you're planning on upgrading body and lenses in the future.

I've got a 14-24 and 17-35 Nikkor 2.8 lenses and both are fantastic on the D3. I've also just borrowed a 24 PC-E and it's truly incredible, but £1,400 new!

On a crop body the 11-16 is great but if you are planning on upgrading any time soon, you'll be buying twice.

Why not look at a 16-35 (bit more budget, but you're only buying once) as at least with that lens you won't be troubled by converging verticals and barrel distortion (on a crop body, anyway).

DB
 
The Tokina 12-24 is about 2/3rds the price of the 11-16 used and if you are using the lens for property work you will probably be using it around f8 - f11 and so the the fact that it is f4 instead of f2.8 doesn't really matter much. There is always good demand for Tokina wide angles so if you buy used you should be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

It is difficult to better the Tokinas performance, the only real way to improve on it is to go full frame and use the Nikon 14-24 f2.8.
 
hewhoknows said:
Just noticed no one has mentioned the Nikkor 10-24mm, is it really not worth considering??
Click to expand...

Considering the cost it is not worth it over the Sigma and in my opinion the Tamron. The 12-24 is much better and sells s/h for 400£ so...
 
hewhoknows said:
Are you a past user?? To be honest that's exactly what Ive heard from multiple reviews and comments ;)

Decision made...........anyone got one for sale :naughty:
Click to expand...

I bought one a few weeks ago and....:gag:...it's simply stunning. When taking close ups and you have the object a new centimetres away from the lens it appears a few feet away. Super wide as well - hard to photograph my feed though....:D

You won't regret it.

ps, I ain't selling mine....:nono:

Cheers and let us know how you get on....:thumbs:
 
posiview said:
I bought one a few weeks ago and....:gag:...it's simply stunning. When taking close ups and you have the object a new centimetres away from the lens it appears a few feet away. Super wide as well - hard to photograph my feed though....:D

You won't regret it.

ps, I ain't selling mine....:nono:

Cheers and let us know how you get on....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I agree, I think this could be my favourite lens at the moment, having so much fun with it. It's fantastic value compared to the WA Nikon DX lenses, which I havent tried so cant compare, but I'm sure you wont be disappointed with the Tokina.
 
posiview said:
I bought one a few weeks ago and....:gag:...it's simply stunning. When taking close ups and you have the object a new centimetres away from the lens it appears a few feet away. Super wide as well - hard to photograph my feed though....:D

You won't regret it.

ps, I ain't selling mine....:nono:

Cheers and let us know how you get on....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, ive made an offer for one from a TP member, just waiting to see what the score is so hopefully this time next week ill be shooting with a Tokky :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top