What wide-angle to buy...
- Thread starter camerashy
- Start date
- Status
Thanks mate!
Get the Tokina 12-24mm, I have one and I love it.... and I use it as my walk around lens.
Get the Tokina 12-24 f4, it is fantastic for low light photography and especially well suited as a walkabout lens. Built like a tank, razor sharp with vivid color rendition and contrast. Made in Japan. I used to buy all nikon lenses but this lens totally changed my perspective for lesser known brands.
I've been using the Tokina 12-24mm for some time now. No regrets. 95% as good as the equavalent Nikkor and much better made as well. Zooming is smooth, and autofocus accuracy is spot-on with my D200. My photo-buddy who's a Nikkor freak tried it once and was amazed at its performance. Some say the Nikkor has better colour.. could be, but the difference isn't THAT much. Go check it out - make sure it focusses accurately with what you're using. Paid $860
Hoky
New Member
matthiascr
New Member
The tokina 12-24's image quality is really bad at wide aperture, ie f4, would only get better when boosted to ard f8 and onwards [i use it almost 25 times per week, due to work] . . on the other hand, i've tested the sigma 10-20 at john's place, is a real buy in terms of built and quality. With the little price difference, would rather get an extra 2mm with better off quality.
true... but @ f8-11 the sharpness is amazing... :bigeyes:
Always go for original brand... If can afford,of course,go for the trinity lens which more people will agree with me it's real :thumbsup: .The Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 which cost about 2.4k +/-if not then go for his " brother" ,18-35mm F3.5-4.5 cost about $950.. . My semi-pro friend told me.... Compare Tamron 17-35mm to Nikon 18-35mm Tamron:thumbsd: :thumbsd: :thumbsd: .Cos the photo looks much much softer... Dun believe??? Go ahead & test... So that's why I rather get 18-35mm which I'm using now.. anyway both lens having almost the same price.. Just merely a bit different but can let you takes better photo.. So why not.. Never compromise quality with price.. Cos you gonna regretted after buying it & later see your lens in the B&S forum.. So why waste your time & $$ right...
maybe he got a bad copy from tamron... tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 was known to give very :thumbsup: result unless its a lemon...
:bsmilie: .. do u know he only buy in trinity lens?? if not after few days u can see his lens @ B&S forum.. Not to side him or basis to certain brand or whatever .. I myself had tried out this two lenses.. Indeed,Nikon stands out ... If still dun believe,brother why not u go and buy the 18-35mm or maybe just borrow from friends that have it to compare the results...If Nikon will lose out to Tamron,I think Nikon's R&D expertise will have to hide in the cave to do research... "Normally" for semi-pro or real pro will only go for original & not 3rd party.. But for newbie liked me,of course,I need to try them out & seek advice from pro in order not to waste unnessary $$ lor..heehee..
up to you... im just saying what i feel.
infact i trust all the 3rd party brand (sigma/tokina/tamron) as much as nikon, tho for the same price, i definitely get nikon. :bsmilie:
its just 3 nikkor lens made up by i dono who. :embrass:
the combination of those lens depends on indiviual... the most common combo is
17-35 f2.8
28-70 f2.8
70-200VR f2.8
Different people have different concept of good lens... for newbie liked me,if really can't afford or not found in B&S forum,I will then buy brand new.If not I just get the better 1 from B&S.. cheaper & better.. once again... I ain't basis against 3rd party brand cos I'm also using the Tamron 28-70mm..;p Cos Nikon selling @ 2 over K le... I do rather use this $$ to get my D200 better..
Cheesecake
Senior Member
but but but...
most lenses reach their optimal performance at around f8-f11!
except for 105 and 135DC... these lenses are meant for speed.
jasontaycs
New Member
Went to John 3:16 to get a Tokina and ended up testing the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 side by side. Immediately noticed Sigma has better colour accuracy. Tokina has obvious green cast. The Sigma consistently took pics where the colour was as seen by the naked eye.
Tried 2 Sigmas though and got the 2nd cos the first was soft at the right side.
The 2mm diff translates to 15-30 and 18-36mm. So the Sigma gives 3mm more in practice, which can be useful in tight situations (I have to fit an estimated 2million people into a shot in Nigeria next month - no exaggeration)
Sigma build quality is good except for crappy front and rear lens caps.
The Sigma is lighter than the Tokina but I already find the Sigma's weight hurts my middle finger after short while so I would not want the extra weight of the Tokina.
Figure the slower speed won't affect much as my other lenses will be on most of the time and this lens will only be used when I want to shoot at ultra-wide not at it's max zoom setting so both will be at F4.
Tried 2 Sigmas though and got the 2nd cos the first was soft at the right side.
The 2mm diff translates to 15-30 and 18-36mm. So the Sigma gives 3mm more in practice, which can be useful in tight situations (I have to fit an estimated 2million people into a shot in Nigeria next month - no exaggeration)
Sigma build quality is good except for crappy front and rear lens caps.
The Sigma is lighter than the Tokina but I already find the Sigma's weight hurts my middle finger after short while so I would not want the extra weight of the Tokina.
Figure the slower speed won't affect much as my other lenses will be on most of the time and this lens will only be used when I want to shoot at ultra-wide not at it's max zoom setting so both will be at F4.
- Status
Similar threads
