Which ultra-wide; pros & cons please!

[super duper]

I'm thinking about an ultrawide for a D300s...tossing up between the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, 12-24mm f/4 and Tokina 11-17mm f/2.8

Obviously the Tokina has a better aperture, but no AF motor (I hate hate hate slow AF) and a short focal range.

Both Nikons have get out of the ultra-wide territory and into the wide region, so offer a little more versatility, both have an AF motor (but lets face it, generally you don't need fast AF for landscapes). Both have crappy apertures (do you really need a 2.8 on an ultrawide though?). And I can't see much difference between a f/3.5-4.5 and an f/4.

As you can see, I can't decide........are there any other points to think about when comparing these 3 lenses? I'd love to hear some pros and cons from anyone who owns one

Thanks!!

[nightbringer]

How much you're willing to pay for obviously, and how much you need that fast aperture. What are you shooting? Low light, then get the Tokina. Landscapes, don't usually need fast apertures because traditionally you shoot stopped down.

I went through this phase about 8 months ago, and ended up settling on a Sigma 8-16mm, mainly because my D3100 doesn't have a screw-drive. Have you considered the Sigma UWAs? They seem to be among the best bang-for-buck UWAs in the DX arena - if I had gone back again I might have gotten the 10-20mm instead since one niggle of the 8-16mm is that it can't take filters due to the bulbous front element.

[Tannin]

I have posted this before, but you may find it helpful.

APS-C ultra-wides

• Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6. $850. For: incredibly wide! Against: slow, very short at the long end, can't take filters. Summary: a specialist lens, not recommended as your only UWA.
• Canon 8-15mm f/4L fisheye. $1950. For: build quality, image quality. Against: ridiculously expensive, really only suitable for APS-C cameras (turns into a silly circular fish on full frame), can't use filters. Summary: very clever idea but really rather pointless.
• Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 fisheye. $1000. For: build quality, image quality. Against: non-USM focus motor, only 17mm at the long end, can't use filters. Summary: far and away the best fisheye on the market.
• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. $650. For: cheap, wide, a decent performer. Against: not as good optically as the Canon, short long end which in practice is a bigger factor than you would expect. Summary: the most popular UWA on the market.
• Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5. $850. Essentially the same as the older Sigma variable aperture 10-20 bar the higher price. The small difference in max aperture is neither here nor there.
• Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. $1050. For: generally regarded as the best of all the orthodox UWAs; excellent image quality, moderately fast, solid build, fast USM focus. Against: expensive, factory lens hood is bulky. Summary: the benchmark against which all others are judged, a joy to own.
• Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. $800. For: excellent focal length range - the extra 2mm really is useful. Against: markedly inferior optics. Summary: avoid.
• Nikon DX 10-24mm f3.5-4.5. $1480. For: build quality, well regarded optically, very useful focal length range. Against: very expensive. Summary: nice if you can afford it.
• Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. $1000. For: constant f/2.8, excellent optical quality. Against: heavy, expensive, limited focal length range. At these focal lengths, f/2.8 is a bit wasted - you still have massive depth of field and you can hand-hold down to insanely low shutter speeds anyway. Summary: very fashionable and really rather pointless.
• Tamron 11-18 f/4.5-5.6. $670. For: quite cheap. Against: built like it. Also rather flimsy, ordinary optics, restricted focal length range. Summary: look elsewhere.
• Tokina 12-24mm f/4. $900. For: nothing in particular. Against: quite expensive, not very wide, APS-C only. Summary: why wouldn't you get a sharper Canon 10-22, a faster Tokina 11-16/2.8, or a full-frame compatible Sigma 12-24 for about the same money?
• Nikon DX 12-24mm f4. $1700. For: build quality, well regarded optically. Against: very old design; not very wide at 12mm; outperformed optically by the newer Nikon 10-24; stupid price. Summary: buy my bridge?
• Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6. $1050. For: the only UWA for APS-C that works on full frame. Decent build and image quality, sensible price. Incredibly wide on a 5D. Against: not very wide on APS-C - the difference between 10mm and 12mm is large. Summary: well worth considering.

Prices are Australian brick and mortar retail and subject to rapid change. It is easy to find better ones. Opinions are my own. You decide if they are valid ones.

[kiwi]

Id be tempted to go a UWA that works on FX too, pretty painful if you do go FX to change lenses.

[Tannin]

^ Is there still only one, Kiwi? Or have other manufacturers started making them too?

(Caveat which is off-topic here but someone will complain if I don't mention it: the Canon 8-15 fish works on full frame but (a) not on a Nikon, and (b) it loses most of the zoom function and becomes effectively a 15mm prime if we ignore the silly circular fish thing. Anyway, it's a fish and I think we are interested in rectilinear.)

(See - I told you it was off-topic!)

Also, is the Nikon 12-24 still made? It's still listed on theior website, but maybe that's just a historical accident.

Also also - should I mention the very well-regarded Nikkor 14-24 here? Is 14mm wide enough to count?

[kiwi]

Im not sure Tony, I havent really looked but I know the Tokina one does that youve already mentioned.

Does 14mm count on ap-c - probably - just

[super duper]

I did consider the 14-24mm FX lens, but due to the cost and the fact that on a cropped sensor it's barely wider than what I already have (18mm) ruled it out; when I do eventually make it up to the full-size sensor I'll buy the lens to suit then I think.

I don't know if the 12-24mm is still being made, I just assumed as it's on the website.

Thanks HEAPS for that list Tony I'm still mulling the choices over.......

[gqtuazon]

I've tried the new version of the Sigma 12-24mm f3.5-4.5 HSM on my D700 and it gets ridiculously wide. You really don't need an ultra fast aperture lens for landscape. IF FX is something that you are considering, then a FX compatible UWA lens might be worth looking into.

[ricktas]

The new sigma 12-24 DG (fx) lens is getting very good reviews from what I have seen

[gqtuazon]

Here is a sample shot when I tested it during the fair here in Yokohama, Japan just after it's announcement from Sigma. @12mm is similar to a 9mm FOV on a DX.

D700 Sigma@24mm, f5.6


@12mm, f4.5

[Bchip]

Personally, I wouldn't touch a wideangle that doesn't open up to f/2.8. But then again, most of my shots with the wideangle are long exposure and star shots where the aim is to get as much light onto the sensor as quickly as possible. My Tokina very very rarely leaves 11mm, f/2.8. I've tried the sigma 10-20 3.5 and couldn't get anything that even came close to the tokina. Leaving the shutter open to collect light for longer didn't yield the same results.

[arnica]

Boils down to how much you're willing to spend and whether or not you'll be upgrading your body in the future.

[Tannin]

Personally, I wouldn't touch a wideangle that doesn't open up to f/2.8. But then again, most of my shots with the wideangle are long exposure and star shots where the aim is to get as much light onto the sensor ...

In your case, absolutely! Special needs, special lens.

[kiwi]

Id want 2.8 and af-s

Im not sure there is one that suits

[super duper]

Id want 2.8 and af-s

Me too, and add FF....now just trying to decide which one I want more. I'm half tempted to just buy the absolute cheapest possible WA, then get the 14-24mm f/2.8 when I upgrade my body........

[junqbox]

I use the 10-24 nikkor and have been more than happy with it. When I eventually get to go FX, I'll probably buy the 14-24, apparently the 10-24 works on FX until about 15mm, when it starts to vignette. The 2.8, or lack thereof, is not really an issue for me.

[RRRoger]

I've owned or tried most of those lens.
Not real keen on Sigma 12-24 although it beats all but the AF-S Nikkor 10-24 DX and 14-24 FX
The 12-24 Nikkor is equal to the Sigma and better in some ways, but is only DX.
I have not tried the Tokina 11-16 but like the f/2.8 , build quality, and Ken Rockwell's review
which however does not compare it to the Nikkor 10-24 which I prefer to use.

The way I see it, good glass is an investment and the best used lens always goes up in price.
So buy the best you can afford.

[super duper]

Okay, I think I'm sold on the Nikkor 10-24mm. I think I'd prefer a focus motor over the wider aperture, although that gorgeous star picture has me wondering!

I'm off to write my letter to Santa now

[maccaroneski]

Good choice... I have the 10-24 and loved it (sold it when I went full frame and only lost about $100).

ONe of the things that I really liked about it over say the 11-16 is the fact that the extra focal length gives it great versatility: it makes a nice walk-around lens which is something that I couldn't really get from say an 11-16.

[IanHulbert]

I went through EXACTLY the same thing and decided on the Sigma 10-20mm as I prefer to leave a Pro1 UV on. This is mostly because my landscape shots (when I actually get out to take them) are during a bush walk of sorts and the filter is fantastic protection (Pro1 is minimum quality or you will soften/distort your photo too much). About 6 months after purchasing the Sigma 10-20mm I was at Greg's for Australia day and we compared the Nikon 10-24mm (great lens) with my Sigma. The Nikon was a clearer picture with less distortion and chromatic aberration, but only very minor near the edges. My experience says go Nikon 10-24mm if you want to pay extra or save on the Sigma 10-20mm. I would recommend if you want extra-extra sharp to remove your filter (unless you are near the beach - salt spray). Hope this helps.