Lens Choice for Nikon D5000

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Michael, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. Michael

    Michael Guest

    I am looking for some guidance. This is a straight up request for
    hopefully informed opinion.

    I have a Nikon D5000 with the two-lens kit, the 18-55VR and the
    55-200VR. I also have half a dozen Nikon manual pre-AI lenses from the
    Nikon F that work in manual mode on the D5000. I am looking to get a
    true wide angle and I am considering one of two (but not both) lenses,
    approximately the same street price, both of which have had good
    reviews, but which are quite different though there is some overlap.
    They are these:

    Nikon DX 10.5mm f/2.8 G ED fisheye
    Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM orthoscopic zoom

    The Nikon is a full frame (APS-C) fisheye which will require software
    to rectify the distortion when fisheye distortion is not wanted. But it
    is a prime lens, it is a Nikon vs a Sigma, and it is considerably
    faster.

    The Sigma does not need software correction, is nominally wider angle,
    and is a zoom which nearly (but not quite) overlaps with the bottom end
    of one of my kit lenses. And it is very markedly slower which means
    either slower shutter speeds or higher ISOs in lower light.

    I don't see that either is VR (image stablized).

    I have seen pictures from the Sigma in magazines and they look good.

    My local photo store can let me try (in the store, on their camera) the
    Nikon but they don't carry Sigma, so short of a moderate drive to Hunt
    Photo/Video (assuming they carry both), I won't be able to compare both
    in real life.

    Notwithstanding the inherent differences between the lenses (because
    they aren't the same thing), does anyone have real-life experience with
    either (or hopefully both) of these lenses?

    Non-flame respones would be much appreciated.
     
    Michael, Feb 19, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I am looking for some guidance. This is a straight up request for
    Usually not needed at that angle of view.

    []

    For pure wide-angle, I recently got a Tamron 10-24mm which I feel is good
    value for the money:

    http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/

    Might be one to add to your list?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Michael

    Savageduck Guest

    You are not going to need VR with WA, or UWA.

    I am shooting a D300s and I have found the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to be a
    sharp, fast, well built, wide angle lens option for my camera. They
    also have a decent 12-24mm f/4.0, both are very good value.
    < http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-a.html >
    Rockwell (take with a pinch of salt) seems to approve;
    < http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm >
    This review was done on a Canon APS-C camera, however most applies to
    use on a Nikon APS-C.
    < http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon >

    It is a great lens.

    Just another suggestion for you to consider.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 19, 2011
    #3
  4. Michael

    me Guest

    I have the Tokina AT-X124 Pro DX 12-24mm F4 which uses the focus motor
    of the body on my D200/D300. I think they may have come out with an
    AF-S version. I've been happy with it.
     
    me, Feb 19, 2011
    #4
  5. Michael

    PeterN Guest

    I use the Nikon 10.5 on my D300 and like it a lot. the software
    correction is trivial.
    Since at those angles every half degree is significant, I wanted to try
    the Sigma but tested it first. The details of my test are in a prior
    post, but here is a summary:
    the fitting was much too tight.
    there was a lot of distortion and chromatic abbe ration at the wide angle.
    My test was performed at the Sigma distributor and the representative
    kept insisting that the mount on my Nikon was too large.
    Sigma has a reputation for inconsistent manufacturing quality. If you
    get a good one, you have goo value.
    Compare with my experience when I had an issue with a Nikon lens. They
    promptly repaired it under the warranty.
     
    PeterN, Feb 19, 2011
    #5
  6. Michael

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2011-02-19 09:12:05 -0800, Michael <> said:
    :
    : > I am looking for some guidance. This is a straight up request for
    : > hopefully informed opinion.
    : >
    : > I have a Nikon D5000 with the two-lens kit, the 18-55VR and the
    : > 55-200VR. I also have half a dozen Nikon manual pre-AI lenses from the
    : > Nikon F that work in manual mode on the D5000. I am looking to get a
    : > true wide angle and I am considering one of two (but not both) lenses,
    : > approximately the same street price, both of which have had good
    : > reviews, but which are quite different though there is some overlap.
    : > They are these:
    : >
    : > Nikon DX 10.5mm f/2.8 G ED fisheye
    : > Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM orthoscopic zoom
    : >
    : > The Nikon is a full frame (APS-C) fisheye which will require software
    : > to rectify the distortion when fisheye distortion is not wanted. But it
    : > is a prime lens, it is a Nikon vs a Sigma, and it is considerably
    : > faster.
    : >
    : > The Sigma does not need software correction, is nominally wider angle,
    : > and is a zoom which nearly (but not quite) overlaps with the bottom end
    : > of one of my kit lenses. And it is very markedly slower which means
    : > either slower shutter speeds or higher ISOs in lower light.
    : >
    : > I don't see that either is VR (image stablized).
    :
    : You are not going to need VR with WA, or UWA.
    :
    : I am shooting a D300s and I have found the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to be a
    : sharp, fast, well built, wide angle lens option for my camera. They
    : also have a decent 12-24mm f/4.0, both are very good value.
    : < http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-a.html >
    : Rockwell (take with a pinch of salt) seems to approve;
    : < http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm >
    : This review was done on a Canon APS-C camera, however most applies to
    : use on a Nikon APS-C.
    : < http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon >
    :
    : It is a great lens.
    :
    : Just another suggestion for you to consider.

    I knew the Duck would throw in a plug for his Tokina 11-16. ;^)

    I have the same lens (in the Canon-mount version) and have also been very
    happy with it. You have to know how to use it, of course. A lens that wide can
    produce some rather silly results if you don't take account of the placement
    of objects in the frame and the perspective with which they're viewed. But I'm
    sure that's equally true of the other lenses you're considering.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 19, 2011
    #6
  7. Michael

    PeterN Guest


    It's true of any WA lens, especially the 10.5 semi fisheye.
     
    PeterN, Feb 20, 2011
    #7
  8. Michael

    Paul Furman Guest

    Go for the Sigma.

    Fisheye is weird and very specialized; you won't understand the framing
    by shooting in fisheye then correcting, correction will lose resolution
    and the CA and corner softness make it not a great lens anyways... it's
    OK and I've had fun with mine but it is really weird and not
    spectacular. I have another Sigma wide angle (12-24 FX slow zoom) and
    really like it a lot!
    http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc
    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma&[email protected]
    Incorrect wording here... even on full frame FX, it isn't a full
    circular fisheye (although it's close). But anyways, like I said,
    fisheye is very weird and converting to rectilinear will be less than
    optimal and very non-intuitive. Go for the Sigma and enjoy. If you had a
    few more thousand dollars... well forget that for now and enjoy the
    sigma. You will learn a lot with it. The next option would be a 12-24 or
    11-24, etc.

    Don't worry about speed, working that wide, you can use a slower shutter
    speeds and the D5000 has good high ISO performance. If you want pro
    quality, get full frame and a 14-24mm f/2.8 and/or 24mm f/2.8 tilt/shift
    but that's a whole other ballgame. The Sigma will get you in the
    ballpark just fine.

    It will need some if you are doing architectural work.

    Considerably wider by the time you correct to rectilinear.

    Yeah, good enough for magazines is pretty good. Technique and
    composition are the key for that.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 20, 2011
    #8
  9. Michael

    swestin Guest

    But couldn't that be corrected in a process analogous to software
    rectification for the fisheye? No more steps than the Sigma zoom,
    and the correction needed would be less extreme.
     
    swestin, Feb 22, 2011
    #9
  10. Michael

    PeterN Guest

    No existing software could compensate for the metallic loss on my camera
    mount caused by the lens.
    The extreme CA might be correctable in theory, as well as the
    distortions, but that is not what is being advertised. I am interested
    in a minimal futz factor in creating my images.

    YMMV
     
    PeterN, Feb 24, 2011
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.