Nikon D70 wide angle lens ?

[Cackalak Han]

I'm looking into getting a wide angle lens for my father (birthday). I am a total photo noob, so I don't know what 12-24mm, 10-20mm, f4 means (I'm going to read up on it). Someone suggested this model:

Tokina 12-24mm

My father will be using this lens to take pictures of vast scenery, like mountains, buildings, beaches, etc. Not so much profile photos.

He already has a zoom and macro lens, so I think this would compliment the set pretty well. The price tag on the above lens seem about right.

Any of you guys have better suggestions or confirm my decision?

Thanks.

 

[spressomon]

I'm looking into getting a wide angle lens for my father (birthday). I am a total photo noob, so I don't know what 12-24mm, 10-20mm, f4 means (I'm going to read up on it). Someone suggested this model:

Tokina 12-24mm

My father will be using this lens to take pictures of vast scenery, like mountains, buildings, beaches, etc. Not so much profile photos.

He already has a zoom and macro lens, so I think this would compliment the set pretty well. The price tag on the above lens seem about right.

Any of you guys have better suggestions or confirm my decision?

Thanks.

I recently purchased the same Tokina lense for my D300. I haven't used it much...but for the $ it seems like a pretty decent overall value.

Here's a guy's comment about it and the Nikon equiv.

http://davehutchison.blogspot.com/2007/11/nikon-vs-tokina-12-24mm-f4-dx-lense.html

But you need to consider why you think you want/need this focal length/range. I use my 18-200mm Nikon lense much more than I do the 12-24mm. This will change as we get back into off-road excursion weather and my shots will contain more landscapes...for which the 12-17mm advantage might be handy. The F refers to the lenses speed and/or ability to capture light. The lower F stop will allow more light to come through the lense allowing you greater range for shutter speed. You will also notice, all things being equal, the faster lenses (lower F stop) will be more expensive.

Now I'll leave it up to the photo pros (I'm a pure amateur that's been taking photos for quite some time...but it isn't my job!) on this forum to make corrections and additions for you ;-)

 

[Cackalak Han]

Thanks for the input! The only reason why I was looking at the Tokina 12-24 was, because someone suggested that particular lense to me. I basically inquired about a wide angle lens that would be ideal to take landscape pictures with.

If you could suggest another wide angle lens, I'm all ears. Also, if you wouldn't mind posting up some sample pictures taken with the suggested lense, that would help a lot.

Thank you.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I went the Sigma 10-20mm. Thom Hogan, who is a very well respected Nikon guy gives his thoughts on the wides for Nikon's here.

You should be sneeky and try to see what your dad thinks about a fisheye. I tried out the Nikon 10.5 fisheye the other day and fell in love. Now I have one on order. It brings a new meaning to wide, and is a brilliant lens.
Edit: A few shots as you asked for, this is with the Sigma 10-20mm.

10mm at F8.

15mm at F11

16mm at F11

 

[arcteryx]

search here- Ken talks about them. great site www.kenrockwell.com

 

[Cackalak Han]

Thanks to both of you for the pics and info. I've got some reading to do.

 

[Lost Canadian]

search here- Ken talks about them. great site www.kenrockwell.com

My 2 cents on Ken for what it's worth
I do like some of what he says but I find him to be extremely opinionated and is without question very biased. I also disagree with some of his thoughts on process, and his habit of reviewing products he's never actually used is misleading.

People seem to either love or hate Ken. Don't get me wrong he does make good points, but I just find too much of what he says to be catered to the uninformed and even more surprising to me is that much of what he says bucks the traditional thinking of photographers who have displayed much better portfolios.

I have found that if you want honest reviews of gear for Nikon's to look to Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, Fred Miranda, or Michael Weber's sites.

 

[Cackalak Han]

My 2 cents on Ken for what it's worth
I do like some of what he says but I find him to be extremely opinionated and is without question very biased. I also disagree with some of his thoughts on process, and his habit of reviewing products he's never actually used is misleading.

People seem to either love or hate Ken. Don't get me wrong he does make good points, but I just find too much of what he says to be catered to the uninformed and even more surprising to me is that much of what he says bucks the traditional thinking of photographers who have displayed much better portfolios.

I have found that if you want honest reviews of gear for Nikon's to look to Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, Fred Miranda, or Michael Weber's sites.

Just curious--have you used the Tokina 12-24? If so, what are your thoughts on it? In the review that Ken gave, did you agree with the section on the Sigma 10-20?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

Thanks.

 

[Lost Canadian]

No I have not tried the Tokina, so I cannot comment. I agree with some of his comments about the Sigma but disagree with what he said about the Sigma's build. It feels well built to me and I've actually beat on mine and have used it in extreme cold. It still works every bit as good as it did new so his concerns about the build are unfounded in my opinion. Also the auto focus is great on mine, no audible noise and no AF hunting. To be fair to Ken it could be a model to model thing, but who knows. Ken is typically very critical of Sigma, and he openly admits to not liking Sigma. So he may be applying a bit of a preconceived bias into his review. This is what I referred to earlier.

As for distortion there is a bit at the wide end, the Sigma is not the lens to get if your dad likes shooting architecture. For landscape and most other situations though you’ll never notice it. It’s also much easier for me to deal with a small amount of distortion rather than huge lens flares which can totally ruin a shot. I can’t complain about the Sigma, it’s wide, it’s sharp, in my opinion well built, and the results I get are pretty good. It’s not a perfect lens, but you’re not going to get perfect at this price point.

 

[spressomon]

Thanks for the input! The only reason why I was looking at the Tokina 12-24 was, because someone suggested that particular lense to me. I basically inquired about a wide angle lens that would be ideal to take landscape pictures with.

If you could suggest another wide angle lens, I'm all ears. Also, if you wouldn't mind posting up some sample pictures taken with the suggested lense, that would help a lot.

Thank you.

I will as soon as I get a chance to take some pics with it in the daylight ;-). Should be able to do this on Saturday for you.

 

[Cackalak Han]

LC - Thanks for the input. But that only complicated my decision making! I am tossing between the Sigma and the Tokina. They are pretty much the same price (the Sigma is ~$20 cheaper through Amazon). The Sigma does have the advantage of the extra 2mm. But does that extra 2mm make a significant difference? That first shot you posted looks awesome! I can't see any kind of distortion, but I am very much a noob. Which means my father won't be able to notice anything, either.

spress - Looking forward to the shots. Thanks for the willingness to go through that effort.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Tell you what, I'll take a shot at 12mm and another from the same position at 10mm, that way you can be the judge.

I'll post back when I can.

Cheers.

 

[Lost Canadian]

"Does an extra 2mm make a difference?" Without question, but you can decide.

This is a pretty harsh test of the lens, with poor lighting and placing it directly overhead, but that's the point along with trying to illustrate the diffence between 10mm and 12mm. As you can imagine, the larger the landscape expance your dad works in the more noticable the difference will be between 10mm and 12mm.

10mm

12mm

...and from a slightly different perspective..

10mm

and 12mm

 

[Cackalak Han]

Wow, that is a huge difference. Now I'm definitely leaning towards the Sigma 10-20. Another quick question: When shooting landscape out in the open, will the effects be pretty much the same as the close range that you just shot? Sorry for the noob question.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Absolutely, but the effect is dependant upon on how you or your dad uses the lens. As Thom Hogan points out in his review "The wider angle of view allows you to move closer to the nearest subject, which gives you an exaggerated depth in your final image."

So say you're shooting landscape at 10mm, if you were to move close to a tree it would create that depth, the close to far, you see in my bottom image. Make sense?