Wide angle lens suggestions (Nikon)

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Sheldon, Feb 10, 2007.

  1. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been
    nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't
    get tons of use but has to be sharp?

    BTW, the best shots I was getting with my D-70 was using the camera in
    automatic mode with the SB 800 angled up at 45 degrees. Used the exposure
    settings on the flash to control lighting, and got an outstanding shot of a
    room with a fireplace in it. All the lamps glowed, the room was damn near
    perfectly exposed and the fire in the fireplace looks awesome. Every time I
    tried to use other settings and get fancy the exposure fell apart. Auto
    even balanced the lighting between the room and the view out the windows.
    Everything looked natural.

    Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode.
    Sheldon, Feb 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sheldon

    Paul Furman Guest

    I'm assuming you are comparing to the 18-70? For interiors, distortion
    is important. As I know, you have budget constraints but no problem with
    using a tripod or manual focus.

    I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected with
    additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems noone complained
    about sharpness in the reviews. For a 12-24 zoom I think it was Tamron
    that came out the best value. If you've got a slew of interior work
    coming the zoom would be useful.

    Sorry no specifics, wide rectalinear is a tough target. I'm not familiar
    with any sharp, bargain, 16mm-ish rectalinear nikkor primes. As I recall
    even their classic 20mm does not get rave reviews.

    Just hoping to clarify, this is an interesting question.
    Paul Furman, Feb 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sheldon

    JR Guest

    The Tokina Pro 12-24/4 is the best value....The Nikkor 12-24/4 is the
    better lens slightly....

    JR, Feb 10, 2007
  4. Sheldon

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yeah, Tokina, not Tamron. My Sigma 12-24 isn't that great unless you
    have full frame.
    Paul Furman, Feb 10, 2007
  5. Sheldon

    Dimitris M Guest

    I also suggest the Tokina 12-24. It rivals Nikkor as equal. This mean that
    Tokina is better in some aspects and Nikkor is better in other. If you use
    it from F5.6 and above and you dont shoot directly into sun or strong light
    sources it may be even slightly better than Nikkor. Nikkor is a little
    faster in AF and has a little less flare and twice the price. I have the
    Tokina, but before I had read all the available tests and I have test both
    for a tenth of photos in the shop.
    Dimitris M, Feb 10, 2007
  6. I'll also suggest the Tokina 12-24 F4 AT-X Pro DX, Though I'm not Rockwell
    fan his comparison of this lens pointed it out as the best value compared
    to the Nikon and better than the Tamarron and Sigma. It's AF not AF-S like
    the Nikon, but that didn't matter for me and almost double the cost.
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 10, 2007
  7. For the widest view, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat, and its
    performance is fairly good, being somewhat (but not hopelessly)
    behind that of the Nikkor 12-14mm (best, but not perfect, and
    quite expensive). The Sigma has noticeable edge/corner chromatic
    problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly
    well into the corners...
    David Ruether, Feb 10, 2007
  8. [...]
    From what I've seen here, www.pbase.com/image/66538111
    and www.pbase.com/ryien/image/67298825/original, the corners
    of this lens may not be exceptional (as the FF 16mm f2.8 Nikkor
    also were not at wide stops) - but the MF 16mm f3.5 Nikkor was
    exceptional even wide open, and even on a TC14A teleconverter.
    It was also very free of flare and ghosts. It works well also on digital
    This is unfortunately true. Even my 15mm f5.6 (VG on FF at f11 1/2)
    is so-so on digital, and the 14mm doesn't have a great reputation
    for this either...
    Huh??? The 20mm f2.8 AF/MF is wonderful at f5.6 and smaller, and the
    original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down)
    were very good.
    It is unfortunale that good, affordable, compact FF equivalents of the
    20, 24, and 28mm don't exist (well, the 20mm almost counts, being
    a not-too-expensive, not-too-large, not TOO slow at a good stop
    30mm equivalent...) but, then, Nikon never made an AF inexpensive
    105 f2.5 or 135mm f2.8 either...
    Zooms sell, even if they rarely perform as well as non-zooms - and
    the exceptions are BIG, heavy, and EXPENSIVE.
    David Ruether, Feb 10, 2007
  9. Sheldon

    Paul Furman Guest

    Agggh, those made me queasy. I've seen much better examples of de-fished
    shots, and of course after de-fishing the corners will be soft so that's
    really not the best use of this lens. It would be hard to judge
    composition through the lens as well. I have a 12mm rectalinear & that's
    plenty wide; too wide for most architectural stuff. I'm planning to
    mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the distortion may
    not even be apparent. Anything with straight lines is going to look freaky.

    More sample shots:
    OK but that's not really a fisheye on crop digital, just kind of odd
    looking with severe barrel distortion.
    I wonder if even the Nikon 12-24 would be sharper than the 18-70 at
    18mm? Wider yes but sharper?
    OK, maybe this would work for the OP. A little less wide but sharper and
    probably a decent price if it's old MF. It ought to do better than a
    12-24 zoom but I think the 17-35/2.8 is equal but an expensive beast as
    you note below. I've also got a bargain grade used one of these coming
    in the mail, we'll see if it's not damaged performance wise.
    That works out to 13, 16 and 18mm and no I don't think any rectalinear
    'primes' are available in that range.
    Paul Furman, Feb 10, 2007
  10. Face it using a puny DSLR to do interiors where detail is VERY important
    is like a slow "J" Off, less than effective. Though digital is nice for
    seeing the end results up front, using something other than a View
    camera is going to suck in some way. Sometimes that sucking though is
    more acceptable than the sucking of ones wallet to afford the digital
    compatible 4x5 back.

    If you only want to do interiors then blow the bucks and buy a Better
    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Feb 10, 2007
  11. Sheldon

    Matt Clara Guest

    Ok, I can accept that...
    Have you been drinking?
    Can you provide a link to this "Better Light"?
    Matt Clara, Feb 10, 2007
  12. I've got the 10.5 DX and I love it. "De-fished" with Nikon Capture 4 it
    works very well as an ultrawide rectilinear. Inevitably there's some loss of
    definition in the corners because they have to get stretched a little to go
    rectilinear, but after all any conventional ultrawide that wide is going to
    go a little funny in the corners anyway.

    Tokina. I'll be ordering one of those fairly soon too. Half the price of the
    Nikon 12-24 and in most respects just about as good, from all accounts. No
    SWM, but on an ultrawide zoom that's not very important anyway.

    Neil Harrington, Feb 10, 2007
  13. Sheldon

    Rebecca Ore Guest

    Rebecca Ore, Feb 10, 2007
  14. Actually yes, although less than impaired this time ;)
    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Feb 10, 2007
  15. Sheldon

    frederick Guest

    For these ultra-wides on DX sensor, the best review comparison I've seen
    is Nikonians:
    My own observation comparing Tokina and Sigma, was that the Sigma has
    very much lower CA than the Tokina.
    Distortions (incl complex pattern) are very easily and exactly corrected
    for these lenses with PTLens (PS plugin or stand-alone). Light fall-off
    can also mainly be corrected with PTLens.
    frederick, Feb 10, 2007
  16. Sheldon

    Bruce Guest

    I use a Sigma 10-20mm on a D70 & D80 & find it very good.

    Bruce, Feb 11, 2007
  17. Sheldon

    Rebecca Ore Guest

    If you don't have a pug in the shot. :)
    Rebecca Ore, Feb 11, 2007
  18. Little Green Eyed Dragon, Feb 11, 2007
  19. Sheldon

    C J Campbell Guest

    I have used both the 10.5mm fish eye Nikkor and the 12-24mm Nikkor. These
    lenses are reasonably sharp. Distortion in both lenses is automatically
    corrected by DxO Professional software.
    C J Campbell, Feb 11, 2007
  20. Take a look at the Sigma 10-20 too; I was also wondering which of the
    two to get, and went for the Sigma because it's wider (and couldn't
    get hold of the Tokina in a reasonable time). Optically, I have no
    complaints: it could be better, but it's fine as it is, very sharp;
    there is some vignetting and other small imperfections at the edges,
    but sharpness is fine. It has a motor ("HSM"), which gives you the
    advantage of full-time manual focus, and it's very well made indeed.
    The Tokina is faster at the long end (the Sigma is f/5.6). I think
    they're both good choices (I haven't used the Tokina, I am going from
    reviews), so I think it's a toss-up.
    achilleaslazarides, Feb 11, 2007
    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.