Nikon Wide Angle Lens


wkchan82

New Member
May 17, 2009
36
0
0
36
#1
Hi,

I'm looking at getting an Wide angle lens. realize there is Zoom type & prime of course with different 'mm' can someone advise on which is recommended or your fav also advise me any important detail i should look out for?



Thanks,
D90 User
 

Sep 19, 2006
608
0
0
East
www.flickr.com
#2
Consider the 12-24mm f/4 or the newer and less expensive 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. I would prefer the 12-24mm for its constant aperture. Either one would compliment your existing set up. I don't think there is a prime wide angle DX lens at the moment. The 10.5mm Fisheye is a different animal altogether.
 

r0n1n

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2009
808
1
18
Wild Wild West
#3
looks like you already have 18-135, so why not go for UWA? If you don't mind 3rd party lens, try Tokina 11-16. I don't have one but I heard good reviews about it. I'm planning to get one myself if budget permits. But if you really want to stick to Nikon, go for kkgoxplore's suggestion.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#4
Plenty of options from Nikon...

1. Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED
2. Nikon AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED
3. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
4. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
5. Nikon AF 14mm f/2.8D ED
 

sgwong

New Member
Sep 7, 2008
105
0
0
34
Bedok
#5
GO FOR Nikon AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#6
The question I'd ask is, are you seeking Ultra wideness or just wideness? It's because there is a huge difference.
 

coolthought

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2008
2,310
1
0
#7
just to note that some of the uwa are fx lens and some dx. At the uwa of the range of available nikon lens, the less mm there is, is somewhat important for the dx body like the D90 becos of the crop factor of 1.5x. For example. A 12-24 on a dx body will be equivalent to a 18-35 on a fx body.

When choosing between the 10-24 and the 12-24 f4, you have to ask which is more important to you. The extra 2mm less or the constant aperture f4 is more critical to what you are shooting. Just to note, through my limited research the 2mm less means about 10degree more viewing angle at the uwa range.... as for the constant f4... I still haven't figure out why that is important...anyone to enlighten on this?
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#8
just to note that some of the uwa are fx lens and some dx. At the uwa of the range of available nikon lens, the less mm there is, is somewhat important for the dx body like the D90 becos of the crop factor of 1.5x. For example. A 12-24 on a dx body will be equivalent to a 18-35 on a fx body.

When choosing between the 10-24 and the 12-24 f4, you have to ask which is more important to you. The extra 2mm less or the constant aperture f4 is more critical to what you are shooting. Just to note, through my limited research the 2mm less means about 10degree more viewing angle at the uwa range.... as for the constant f4... I still haven't figure out why that is important...anyone to enlighten on this?
That is why I asked whether TS is looking for UWA or just WA... :) If the former, then only 1 & 2 of blur shadow's list apply.... the rest, no point on a crop.

I don't see a point in constant f/4.... it's not going to make a really huge difference if you want to use the lens handheld in low lights. If you're going to use tripod, then what's the point of f/4 anyway since you can afford to go all the way to f/8 to f/11 to make the details sharper? If shooting in daytime, handheld... between f/4 and f/4.5 ... not really THAT great in difference. If the light is good, even f/4.5 will work just as well... Hence, for UWA... I'd rather take 10-24mm plus it is cheaper and more versatile!
 

Last edited:

huggable

Senior Member
Nov 2, 2004
3,702
0
0
East side
#9
Other than the 2mm, max aperture, and price differences, the 12-24 is an Internal Focus (IF) lens, while the 10-24 extends physically when zoomed out.
Go for the 10-24 if the purpose to use UWA is to go widest. The Sigma 10-20mm is a decent choice too.

just to note that some of the uwa are fx lens and some dx. At the uwa of the range of available nikon lens, the less mm there is, is somewhat important for the dx body like the D90 becos of the crop factor of 1.5x. For example. A 12-24 on a dx body will be equivalent to a 18-35 on a fx body.

When choosing between the 10-24 and the 12-24 f4, you have to ask which is more important to you. The extra 2mm less or the constant aperture f4 is more critical to what you are shooting. Just to note, through my limited research the 2mm less means about 10degree more viewing angle at the uwa range.... as for the constant f4... I still haven't figure out why that is important...anyone to enlighten on this?
 

Last edited:
Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#10
Other than the 2mm, max aperture, and price differences, the 12-24 is an Internal Focus (IF) lens, while the 10-24 extends physically when zoomed out.
Go for the 10-24 if the purpose to use UWA is to go widest. The Sigma 10-20mm is a decent choice too.
Funny how come I never detect this when I was trying out both lenses at NSC - must have been paying attention to other things instead... :think: Thanks for pointing out the internal focusing feature, that explains GREATLY why the lens cost so much more... Anyway, 10-24 does extend out physically, but only by a little and it doesn't creep, so build quality is pretty good.
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#11
Anyway, I'd advice TS to go down to NSC for a trial out with the DX lenses (bring your DSLR down). Side by side, the two 2mm difference is really big! Btw, no need to try both lenses if you want to see the 2mm difference. Put on the 10-24mm and shoot at both focal lengths at 10mm and then 12mm. Compare the two shots from your LCD.
 

God77

New Member
Mar 4, 2009
15
0
0
#12
If I plan to use UWA lens for portraits and documentary, which one will be nicer between Nikon 10-24mm and tokina 11-16mm. As I've never used a UWA Lens, I don't know whether Ultra-Wide range like 10-12mm can be used for portraits without a lot of distortions.
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#13
If I plan to use UWA lens for portraits and documentary, which one will be nicer between Nikon 10-24mm and tokina 11-16mm. As I've never used a UWA Lens, I don't know whether Ultra-Wide range like 10-12mm can be used for portraits without a lot of distortions.
Both lenses can be used for portraits, but be careful not to place people towards the outer edges in the frame... as they can be "stretched" at times. If for portraiture, 11-16 is the better lens for sure since it can be used handheld and during low lights (due to bigger aperture). As long as you're okay with the limited focal lengths between 11-16mm, this lens is highly recommended.
 

thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
448
0
0
Singapore
#14
On a DX, the choice is either the 12-24mm or the 10-24mm
Of the two I'd recommend the 10-24mm as it's slightly wider and also cheaper, although it doesn't have a constant aperture
 

coolthought

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2008
2,310
1
0
#15
If I plan to use UWA lens for portraits and documentary, which one will be nicer between Nikon 10-24mm and tokina 11-16mm. As I've never used a UWA Lens, I don't know whether Ultra-Wide range like 10-12mm can be used for portraits without a lot of distortions.
usually these aren't the lenses to go for if shooting portraits. However, I have seen some successful ones using it but usually these are used to emphasized the space surrounding the subject. If you are using it for close up cropped for your girlfriend portraits, she will definitely gonna hammer you.... face will look fatter.... :bsmilie:
 

JeffryZ

New Member
Sep 17, 2007
446
0
0
#16
I use the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for my D80 and love it. Fast aperature (easier to use in lower light situations) and very sharp with little odd distortions (wide angles do have their normal distortion- whatever is closest to the lens looks bigger). I used to have the Sigma 10- 20mm but like the Tokina better (better images as well as better build quality). I have not tried the Nikon ones. They do cost more and are not as fast at the maximum aperature opening but I would expect them to have a little less lens flare and ghosting (not big problem with the Tokina but it can happen in situations).

Shots like this are harder with a slower lens (hand held, ISO 400 f/2.8 1/13 second):
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#17
Shots like this are harder with a slower lens (hand held, ISO 400 f/2.8 1/13 second):
As you can see... people at the left edge are getting stretched a little. That's why you have to be careful with UWA for portraits...unless you don't mind that stretchy look... This applies to all UWAs not specifically 11-16mm.
 

bruggink

New Member
Jul 2, 2008
901
0
0
#18
I think there is only 2 lenses that u need to consider if you are DX user.. Either Nikon 12-24mm or Tokina 11-16mm. Personally I'll vote for the Tokina one.
 

kinky1971

New Member
Sep 5, 2009
62
0
0
#19
I think there is only 2 lenses that u need to consider if you are DX user.. Either Nikon 12-24mm or Tokina 11-16mm. Personally I'll vote for the Tokina one.
How about 18-200mm? Is 18mm sufficient to be a wide angle for a DX?
 

Luv4nature

Senior Member
May 9, 2002
726
0
16
S'pore
Visit site
#20
I have a feeling some of the basic knowledge of photography (f-stop, focal length, shutter speed, dof, ev, etc) are disappering in the modern age of digital photography.

It was a norm for starters to just get hold of a basic pentax k1000 manual body and a 50mm standard lens and start shooting everything in manual to understand the true meaning and effect of the basic parameters. Nowadays, automation and technologies have obviously taken over.

Do more hands on shoot to understand the essence of various parameters, one's own style of shoot, and in turn the required gear. Need not be chasing equipment and numbers all the time just to feel comfortable.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom