Wide Angle Lens
- Thread starter siman23
- Start date
Assuming you're using a DX-body since the 17-55 is a DX lens, then a 12-24 will give you a fair bit extra...
KR also recommends the Tokina equivalent http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm, which is a bit cheaper and not much lower in quality - you'll have to decide if you'll use it enough to warrant spending more on the Nikkor optic (I would, but that's just me).
KR also recommends the Tokina equivalent http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm, which is a bit cheaper and not much lower in quality - you'll have to decide if you'll use it enough to warrant spending more on the Nikkor optic (I would, but that's just me).
- Messages
- 351
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you can find a Tokina!
I was offered a very good one off deal on a 10-24mm Nikkor, its now my go to lens as it covers the UWA to 36mm equivalent which has pretty much always been the length glued to my cameras.
Get as wide as you can as I'm sure you'll love it.
Nick.
I was offered a very good one off deal on a 10-24mm Nikkor, its now my go to lens as it covers the UWA to 36mm equivalent which has pretty much always been the length glued to my cameras.
Get as wide as you can as I'm sure you'll love it.
Nick.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Siman23, I use a 12-24mm nikon alongside a 17-50mm Tamron. The Nikon is great; well built, good optics and very wide field of view, so perfect for everything from editorial to landscapes. I have no problems with it whatsoever. Probably the one niggle about it is the ability to flare in strong sunlight on occasions, but that's due to a big-rounded front element and I expect that's the case with the competition too. The lens hood usually sorts that out (or a well-placed palm). Other than that i love it.
That said, from what i've heard and read, the Tokina is just as good and a lot cheaper; I went for the Nikon because it was at a knockdown (£450) price. If I'd not had that option it would have been the Tokina simply because I've played with the Siggy 10-20mm and I just don't rate it.
I fit mine with a UV filter or circular polariser and there's no vignetting but if you stack Colin P filters on top of the CP then you start to see darkened corners. It's not a problem if you recompose a step or two backwards and crop in later (or use the zoom).
AF on the Nikon is very quick an accurate. Minimum focussing distance is good too - think it's about 25cm. I use mine with a D2X and it performs brilliantly for magazine work.
Here's a sample pic to show the difference between 17mm (top) and 12mm (bottom). Both at f/4 with IO 640 and 1/60th. Shot in manual and handheld. Think the Tamron probably underexposes by about 1/3rd stop, there or thereabouts but at least it gives you an idea of what the 12mm offers over the 17mm.
Excuse my desk - it's a mess
That said, from what i've heard and read, the Tokina is just as good and a lot cheaper; I went for the Nikon because it was at a knockdown (£450) price. If I'd not had that option it would have been the Tokina simply because I've played with the Siggy 10-20mm and I just don't rate it.
I fit mine with a UV filter or circular polariser and there's no vignetting but if you stack Colin P filters on top of the CP then you start to see darkened corners. It's not a problem if you recompose a step or two backwards and crop in later (or use the zoom).
AF on the Nikon is very quick an accurate. Minimum focussing distance is good too - think it's about 25cm. I use mine with a D2X and it performs brilliantly for magazine work.
Here's a sample pic to show the difference between 17mm (top) and 12mm (bottom). Both at f/4 with IO 640 and 1/60th. Shot in manual and handheld. Think the Tamron probably underexposes by about 1/3rd stop, there or thereabouts but at least it gives you an idea of what the 12mm offers over the 17mm.
Excuse my desk - it's a mess