Another "Which Lens" Thread - Landscape

[znelbok]

Hi all

Looking at getting a lens for landscape. I have read here and there are a lot of recomendations which have helped me narrow the list down to this

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX AF
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 Ex DC HSM
Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 ED DX

The first two are priced fairly close to each other but the Nikon is another $300 on top.

All reports indicate that they are all good lenses, but what distinguishes one from the others. Is the Tokina going to be better at f/2.8 or wont that make a difference agains the f/3.5 for the others?

Is the Nikon that much better that the $300 can be justified? It may be more usable with a larger range, but I already have a kit lens that does 18mm

The Sigma is the cheapest (not by much) buthas more range than the Tokina.

Also, Tamron make a 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. i dont nsee much metnion of Tamron here. is there something they are not doing right or are there lenses just not as good. The Tamron is around $100 cheaper than the first two.

If it matters, this is for a D80 (and a D7100 when it comes out )

[zollo]

The tokina is going to be the best wide open, by a margin too. F/2.8 comes in handy if you ever shoot wide indoors or other low light situations. The extra for the Nikon is probably not worth it, you do get the extra range, and also some proprietary features such as automatic distortion correction by the camera body like the d7000/or the as yet mythical d7100.

Another thing to consider is that the tokina has pro build quality, which in itself comes with advantages but extra weight etc.

The Tamron is 'just not as good' as the other 3 basically

[rene52]

Now I am not sure this will help you or not - The f2.8 would seem a quicker lens - why you ask - well because it can get down to 2.8 which would allow a faster shutterspeed. That does not mean that the lens is a 'better' lens but possivbly quicker lens - if you were to go out and take shots before sunrise and after sunset then this may help in those shots. I am not so sure that the TOKINA is a better lens or not as I do not own one myself - I usually find though that in mosty cases the more you shell out the better the lens is. I have bought some pretty cheap Sigma and Tamron lenses (mainly becaus of the price) and found them frustrating as they don't live up to my expectation. I then bought anotrher Sigma lens that has a few extras on it and paid twice as much but it works about 100% better than the cheaper lenses I have.

As I said - this isn't going to help but I would consider what each lens has and what type of lighting you are expecting to capture.

[William]

Just my opinion but I dont think you need a 2.8 widey, Most shots are taken in low light , Wether it's indoors or Sunrise /Sunset then you are going to have to use a Tripod anyway , And in both cases you want mostly Max DOF so you will be shooting at f8 or more , Just a thought

[znelbok]

Thats what the question was based around, is the 2.8 really justified. It sounds like for landscape that is it not but when looking at the DOF calculators it appears to not make any difference at all as the far distance is infinity wether its f/2.8 or f/8. You just end up wth a faster UWA for low light conditions that may get you through if you dont have a tripod.

[William]

Yep true , But I dare anyone to take a shot 30 mins before Sunrise or in a room with just lights on Hand held , I dont know anyone that shoots landscapes at 2.8 anyway , I always wondered why they bought out a 2.8 widey Maybe for street photos could be the exception or something I'm not thinking of

PS : Anyway hope this helps in your decision , Either way I have the Siggy 3.5-5.6 and It's a great lens with excellent image quality

[Bennymiata]

The biggest advantage of having an F2.8 lens is that you get a much brighter image in the viewfinder, or in live view which allows you to see and focus better.
It also allows the autofocus to work faster and more accurately as it has a brighter image to work with.
Also, lenses generally aren't as sharp when they are wide open compared to how sharp they are when close down a bit, so starting at F2.8 means that when you do have to take a shot at say, F3.5, you'll get a sharper image with the Tokina than you will with a lens who's widest opening is F3.5.
Tokinas are renowned for how good their wide angle lenses are, and the colour and contrast of the 11-16 is really very good indeed on a crop sensor, and even though it is a DX lens, above 15mm, it will also work on a full-frame camera without too much vignetting.

[TOM]

At your chosen focal lengths (which are quite wide), your best f stops for the best contrast, DOF, refraction compromise is going to be around f4 to f5.6. Now with most lenses, particularly those made for SLR's (retro focus), the best performance is usually three stops, or thereabouts, stopped down. So this is why fast lenses are beneficial, apart from the other benefits listed above.

[znelbok]

Thanks to all who have replied - it has helped but I am still a little unsure as to which to go with - but i think either will wil not be a mistake (the Tokina is in the lead).

Do you guys advocate the use of filters with such a lens. I use a UV filter at the moment, more for just protection. Should I look at somthing similar for a lens like these. I also have a Cokin p series filter holder and I would expect to use that with a GND filter, but should I use a UV as protection?

[William]

I think the latest consenus is "NO" for a lot of reasons , One being loss of Image quality, And sometimes they can cause more problems if Damaged by dropping , Using a lens hood is a safer option IMO

[znelbok]

That is the thinking I had, you spend a lot of money on good glas and then put some cheap glass in front. Just looking for a sanity check.

Mick

[Chayelle]

Mick...
just a bit of a question...
do you use your 18-135 for landscape shooting right now?
What focal length do you find you are using for your landscape
shots the most?

[gqtuazon]

Hi all

Looking at getting a lens for landscape. I have read here and there are a lot of recomendations which have helped me narrow the list down to this

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX AF
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 Ex DC HSM
Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 ED DX

The first two are priced fairly close to each other but the Nikon is another $300 on top.

All reports indicate that they are all good lenses, but what distinguishes one from the others. Is the Tokina going to be better at f/2.8 or wont that make a difference agains the f/3.5 for the others?

Is the Nikon that much better that the $300 can be justified? It may be more usable with a larger range, but I already have a kit lens that does 18mm

The Sigma is the cheapest (not by much) buthas more range than the Tokina.

Also, Tamron make a 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. i dont nsee much metnion of Tamron here. is there something they are not doing right or are there lenses just not as good. The Tamron is around $100 cheaper than the first two.

If it matters, this is for a D80 (and a D7100 when it comes out )

Everyone provided great inputs already.
I've owned the D80 and Nikon 18-135mm kit lens for a long time too. I am not a fan of that lens so if it was me, I would invest on a better glass such as the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 AFS if that is something that you would like to consider and/or upgrade to the D7000 in order to improve the image quality.

If I was going to choose the lens that you've listed, I would go for Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX AF since it is a very sharp lens. For UWA lenses, you'll get a lot of distortion. One of the benefits in using this lens is its characteristic of being a parfocal lens when used to take video. This does not apply to you since your D80 does not have a video capability.

[znelbok]

I dont like the lens either. I do plan to change it to something else but 1 step at a time. With a trip to Hawaii soon, I want something that is good for lanscaping shots and the 18-135 is definately not it.

[AVALANCHE]

I own the Tokina 11-16mm as my wide angle that I used on my Nikon D7000 and I love it.

It is a great build quality, and being f/2.8 gives you lots of great opportunities to shoot in ambient light without the need for flash!

I used this lens in some Churches for fun and it is amazing seeing how it exagurates the lines and curves of the ceilings and walls.

[znelbok]

Ok Guys - I was so close to buying the Tokina but ran out of funds duw to an overseas holiday. That may have been lucky because the D80 broke and while I managed to fix it I am going to upgrade to the D600.

So, what lens should I be looking for for the D600 FF camera?

The Nikon 16-35mm F/4 VR appears to be a close match - while not as fast, it has VR for heand held situations. Being a UWA lens, I expect it to be used on the tripod more opten than not.

Tokina have a FF UWA Lens - a 16-28mm F2.8 (http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/pro...x1628f28profx/)
Is this lens any good in comparison - does anyone here have any experience with it?

Thanks

[Steve Axford]

Not sure why you would need VR with a wide angle lens. You could save some money, or get a better lens without VR.

[znelbok]

Yes, I would tend to agree.

What better lens do you suggest? The review at Ken Rockwell has the Nikon 16-35 VR as one of the best lenses ever - even better than the 14-24mm from Nikon.

"The Nikon 16-35mm VR is the sharpest ultrawide zoom I've ever used."

That being said, there are benefits to this lens as well. It can take a filter which when doing landscape can be a big advantage. The other Nikon and the Tokina will not accept a filter.

Also, the 14-24mm is about $700 more than the one with VR. The Tokina is said to be as good as the 14-24mm, but not as good as the 16-35mm. The Tokina's price is about $500 less than the VR lens and half the price of the wider Nikon.

So while I have not made up my mind yet, the Nikon VR is looking particulary good at the moment, but real user feedback is always appreciated as you can only learn so much from reading reviews and looking at pictures.

[Cage]

What better lens do you suggest? The review at Ken Rockwell has the Nikon 16-35 VR as one of the best lenses ever - even better than the 14-24mm from Nikon.

"The Nikon 16-35mm VR is the sharpest ultrawide zoom I've ever used."

That being said, there are benefits to this lens as well. It can take a filter which when doing landscape can be a big advantage. The other Nikon and the Tokina will not accept a filter.

Not only KR's opinion.

See also.....http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492..._afs_1635_4_ff
and this.....http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr

My D600, AF-S 300mm f4 and AF-S 50mm f1.8G arrive tomorrow and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR will be my NEXT acquisition.

I discounted a couple of others because of their inability to mount GND filters.

[knumbnutz]

Hi
I have had the 16-35 and still own the 14-24.
I love the 14-24. Some things I didnt like on the 16-35 were the lightweight toy feel compared to the 14-24 (also compared to 24-70 and 70-200).
I do like to use a CP but obviously don't on the 14-24. I can say too, I haven't missed it at the moment. Also the ultra wide has some great uses indoors or for architecture.
Either way, these lenses are excellent and worth the money and hold there own on FX and will be a good investment for the future if you go FX.