Nikon Landscape Lens

Tokina 11-16 , I brought one about 10 months ago, still learning to use it properly but it`s a beautiful lens and I found that the f2.8 really comes in handy in low light churches etc.
 
:thumbs: for the Tokina 12-24 f4 - had one when I had a crop'd body - awesome len's... Prefered it over the Sigma 10-20 - some may disagree an recommend the Siggie. But I found on reviews that the Tokina 12-24 f4 won hands down over the Sigma 10-20....
 
Seems like Tokina's making some solid lenses?

I have another question though, this just in. why would one need a large aperture when taking landscape shots? i understand that we would want as shallow a depth of field as possible?
 
123paradox321 said:
I have another question though, this just in. why would one need a large aperture when taking landscape shots? i understand that we would want as shallow a depth of field as possible?
Click to expand...
No. You would want as much DOF as possible. But that would equate to a small aperture. You don't need or want an f/2.8 lens for landscapes.
 
123paradox321 said:
plus, if used on a tripod, night shots shouldnt be a problem?
Click to expand...
Well, that's generally correct but it depends on the subject. If you want to photograph the Northern Lights, you want a lens which is wide AND fast.
 
woops, kinda got the terminologies mixed up! i just did the northern lights with my 28-70mm. seriously wish i had a wider lens. what's your vote mr stewartR? second hand tokina? nobody's recommending a nikkor? is it worth stretching the budget?
 
123paradox321 said:
what's your vote mr stewartR? second hand tokina? nobody's recommending a nikkor? is it worth stretching the budget?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm a Canon user so for me the Canon 10-22mm is pretty much a no-brainer. Great lens.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is nice, with great build quality. But personally I'd rather have 10mm than f/2.8, and I don't particularly like the Tokina push-pull focus clutch mechanism. I prefer to have MF available alongside AF all the time, as you do with Canon's USM lenses. (Yes, I know MF isn't so important on ultra wide lenses, but even so.)

Lots of people like the Sigma 10-20mm. I'm not so sure. It's an OK budget option, but I've always thought the colours don't come out quite right. Not sure I can put my finger on why. This is the Mk I version of the lens I'm talking about. I haven't used the Mk II.

I have no experience of Tamron ultra wides, or of the Tokina 12-24mm.

On the Nikon front, I like the look of the 12-24mm. Solid build, good optics, constant f/4. It feels like a real pro lens. Shame it only goes to 12mm though. The newer 10-24mm solves that, but Nikon kept it affordable by throwing away all the other desirable aspects of the 12-24.

Hope this helps, but I fear it won't. There are so many options available, most people who aren't pro reviewers won't have experience of all of them. I'd be tempted to listen to Ken Rockwell for once, because he's a Nikon man and an ultra-wide junkie.
 
before you spend oodles of £££££

read...''this''..also by Ken Rockwell(c)

i have a Sigma 17-70.........the 17mm is great for landscapes ...why push everything into the far distance..?
..........................

KR quote
FX Digital, Nikon: Get the 14-24mm. It's the world's best 14mm lens ever for 35mm format cameras
 
Last edited:
Yardbent said:
KR quote
FX Digital, Nikon: Get the 14-24mm. It's the world's best 14mm lens ever for 35mm format cameras
Click to expand...

I have this lens. It truley is outstanding!!!!:thumbs: Before i purchased it, i had the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Yes it's a fantastic lens for the money but after having the Nikkor 14-24, i could never go back. the only thing i miss with the 14-24 is the fact i cannot get a filter system to go with it, other than the Lee Filters system, and even then, i cannot get a 10 stop filter for the kit!
 
Last edited:
The tokina 11-16 is the sharpest of the bunch, with amazing corner sharpness and detail. It's the DX equivalent of the 14-24 I'd say.

I used to have a Sigma 10-20 which was a workhorse for 2yrs but not convinced about the sharpness now, and had the usual Sigma QC issues to start with.
 
* Nikon 12-24mm f/4 if you can afford it - for NAF it's the best for build AND IQ. You'll easily get a minter for £450.

* Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - as good as the Nikon optically but a tad off on the build front. The bargain of the century IMO when it comes to ultrawides..... I bought mine for £240, mint,

* Tokina 11-16mm - quality optics at a very good price but a limited zoom that will leave you wanting if you're that way inclined.

* Sigma 10-20mm - Cheap and wiiiiiiide but not as good as the Tokina in terms of IQ and only just equal on the build front. I didn't like what I saw when it came to corner sharpness, even at middling f/stops, although lots of people get on fine with them.

The Nikon 10-24mm isn't as well built as the 12-24mm, and by all accounts the Tamron 10-24 is a good buy but not the best. Both these have a very good zoom range if you aren't just using it exclusively at their widest.

Sigma also does a 12-24mm that's designed for FX but I've never played with one and it doesn't seem that popular a choice with crop camera users.
 
Last edited:
Yardbent- Thanks a lot for this. He does go to great lengths explaining the lenses. even the denitions! The photos of the hotel in dubai taken on the nikon 14-24mm did give me lil' tingling feelings in my fingers.


Wilko- the 28-70mm i purchased recently left a hole in my bank account. the 14-24 will stay a dream for now =).

jollyjack- do you find the max aperture at f/4 a hindrance in low light conditions?

stumeech- is 14-24mm wide enough for a DX camera then? I have a d90. Do you find that you have to change lenses often with the tokina (as what specialman pointed out)?

specialman- have you used all Four of them?! Lucky dude. haha. It seems to me that it's a good fight btw the nikon and tokina (bargain of the century) 12-24mm?
 
I've owned the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24, plus I used the Sigma 10-20 for a few months in a works kit. Tried the Tokina 11-16 that a mate has, and I liked it. I was in the same position as you when I was after an UWA - too many to choose from :)

Now have a Sigma 14mm f/2.8, partly for the closer focussing distance, which comes in handy for the type of editorial work I do.

An underrated lens is the Sigma 15-30 but it's probably not wide enough for what you want. Built like a tank :)

Tried the 14-24 today on the Nikon 14-24 today on the Nikon stand.... Wow, what a lens.

The thing I found with ultra wides, especially where landscapery is concerned, is I was generally using them only at their widest, hence another reason I went for the Sigma prime. The zooms although useful, seemed like I was. wasting a lot of lens the more I shot stuff on them. Funny really because I use the full length if my 17-55 and my other zooms....

If you want a totally mad wide-angle, have a play with the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye..... totally bonkers :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
I've owned the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24, plus I used the Sigma 10-20 for a few months in a works kit. Tried the Tokina 11-16 that a mate has, and I liked it. I was in the same position as you when I was after an UWA - too many to choose from :)

Now have a Sigma 14mm f/2.8, partly for the closer focussing distance, which comes in handy for the type of editorial work I do.

An underrated lens is the Sigma 15-30 but it's probably not wide enough for what you want. Built like a tank :)

Tried the 14-24 today on the Nikon 14-24 today on the Nikon stand.... Wow, what a lens.

The thing I found with ultra wides, especially where landscapery is concerned, is I was generally using them only at their widest, hence another reason I went for the Sigma prime. The zooms although useful, seemed like I was. wasting a lot of lens the more I shot stuff on them. Funny really because I use the full length if my 17-55 and my other zooms....

If you want a totally mad wide-angle, have a play with the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye..... totally bonkers :)
Click to expand...

I find i use my 14-24 for a lot more than just landsacape photography.:thumbs:
 
wilko said:
I find i use my 14-24 for a lot more than just landsacape photography.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Are you using it on DX or FX? If DX, how's if fare? Good, I bet. Everything I've read about it says that sharpness across the whole image on FX us amazing and on DX, you're in that sweet spot so it's always good.

Had the guy on the Nikon stand doing all sorts with his hand close to the lens - minimum focussing distance seems good, which is one major consideration for me. Think my Sigma beats it in that respect but I'd easily forgo a few cm of focussing distance just for the step-up in IQ the 14-24mm would give.:)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Are you using it on DX or FX? If DX, how's if fare? Good, I bet. Everything I've read about it says that sharpness across the whole image on FX us amazing and on DX, you're in that sweet spot so it's always good.

Had the guy on the Nikon stand doing all sorts with his hand close to the lens - minimum focussing distance seems good, which is one major consideration for me. Think my Sigma beats it in that respect but I'd easily forgo a few cm of focussing distance just for the step-up in IQ the 14-24mm would give.:)
Click to expand...

I have used it on my D300s, and on a mates D700 and it's excellent on both formats. It's the lens that stays on my camera all the time. Looking to upgrade from the D300s to either a D700, or a D3s next month so will enjoy the full benefits of it, then. Can't wait!
 
Budget wise I found the Tokina 12-24mm a better buy than the Sigma 10-20mm, its a really nice lens, well built and sharp and I found that the colour rendition was better than the siggie as well.
However, I now don't own a wide angle lens as I found that I was only taking pictures of lots of tiny things in the distance. I now use my Nikon 18-135mm and shoot 2 or 3 portrait shots and stitch them together. Seems to work better for me.

Cheers

Andy
 
123paradox321 said:
stumeech- is 14-24mm wide enough for a DX camera then? I have a d90. Do you find that you have to change lenses often with the tokina (as what specialman pointed out)?
Click to expand...

I've not used the 14-24 on dx, but I'd find it not wide enough nor be able to use it for my work as it uses expensive lee filters and no 10 stopper.

I'm a wide junkie so I don't often change lenses but I have a 17-50/2.8 so when I do change I don't loose any gaps in focal lengths.

Sent from my HTC Desire using TP Forums
 
Thanks for pointing that out stumeech

nikon 14-24mm doesnt have a filter thread! a waste of my cokin P

Ken rockwell :

'Filter Size

NONE.

No front filters, and no rear gels.'

That's a huge nono

Ladies and gentlemen, we're down to nikon or tokina 12-24mm f/4! Thanks for your suggestions this far!
 
Will be keeping my eyes peeled to 'Classifieds'. ;) Have seen Wilko and Jollyjack there very often. What are the recommended prices for the two in mint condition? =)
 
123paradox321 said:
Thanks for pointing that out stumeech

nikon 14-24mm doesnt have a filter thread! a waste of my cokin P

Ken rockwell :

'Filter Size

NONE.

No front filters, and no rear gels.'

That's a huge nono

Ladies and gentlemen, we're down to nikon or tokina 12-24mm f/4! Thanks for your suggestions this far!
Click to expand...

There is a Lee setup for the 14-24, however it's quite expensive.

For FX I'd get the 16-35, cheaper, can use the normal Lee filters I have, and is (apparantly) the sharpest Nikon UWA.
 
123paradox321 said:
Will be keeping my eyes peeled to 'Classifieds'. ;) Have seen Wilko and Jollyjack there very often. What are the recommended prices for the two in mint condition? =)
Click to expand...

I think i sold my pristine Tokina 11-16 for about £380-£390 if i remember correctly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top