Wide angle for d90?


roaringflamer

Member
Jun 16, 2009
274
0
16
Singapore
hello all! as above. looking to go into more landscape and having a wider fov. so planning to take the plunge and get a uwa lens. listed some below so perhaps users can give their feedback? most im wondering whether its worth it to get a 2.8 or will a 4 suffice?

1. nikkon 10-24 3.5-4.5
2. nikkon 12-24 4
3. tokina 11-16 2.8
4. tokina 12-24 4
5. sigma 10-22 3.5
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,517
0
36
rainy Singapore
My personal opinion is that f/2.8 is superfluous, because my landscape shots are usually at f/8 or more.
I'm using tokina 12-24 f/4, mainly coz I felt it was the best value for money, and the focal range suited
my needs.
 

Andrew Ng

New Member
Aug 14, 2007
897
0
0
West of Singapore
www.genone3.com
Hi,

any lens can take landscape... no need uWA.... ;)

If you have a 18mm ++++ its as good. :-}

Google for David Norton.

Just be cautious of distortion and 'bent' horizons on UWA. :-}

Cheers!
 

roaringflamer

Member
Jun 16, 2009
274
0
16
Singapore
thanks for the replies! haha yup im kinda decided more on the tokinas due to price and IQ. just wondering whether its worth it to pay more for the 2.8 so i can use it to shoot indoors as well for architecture
 

DonnyDan

New Member
Dec 4, 2009
231
0
0
33
f2.8 make not much different for a UWA.

I would recommend T11-16 for the sharpness, built and contrast. 2nd would be Sigma 10-22 3.5 but I am not a Sigma supporter. Some of my friend prefer Sigma color contrast.

thanks for the replies! haha yup im kinda decided more on the tokinas due to price and IQ. just wondering whether its worth it to pay more for the 2.8 so i can use it to shoot indoors as well for architecture
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,220
3
38
SG
thanks for the replies! haha yup im kinda decided more on the tokinas due to price and IQ. just wondering whether its worth it to pay more for the 2.8 so i can use it to shoot indoors as well for architecture
Wide angle lenses have large pseudo depth of field even at larger apertures, meaning u probably will not see too much of diff shooting at f2.8 vs one taken at say f4 at the 10 or 12 mm end. And if u r using the wide angle lens to shoot landscapes, u will be stepping down the aperture anyway to even smaller.

but one possible advantage i can think of is hand held shooting in dimmer places where u cannot deploy a tripod, and short of pushing high iso, a larger aperture is nice. but how many times u shoot in that situation.

ryan
 

smile_gerard

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2006
611
0
16
Singapore
I have the Tokina 12 - 24. Took it out on a trip to the uk without any tripod. From morning till evening it will do fine. But once it gets dark your going to have to push your iso. Its times like that where i wished i had the f2.8. But then again the 12 - 24 range is much more useful compared to 11 - 16. So you have to choose between usable range or low light.
 

ZeRoCoOl

Member
Sep 24, 2006
178
0
16
East
Own a 11-16mm f2.8.

Great wide angle lens for low light shooting.
Love the colour contrast

BUT
- 77mm filter (vignetting is unavoidable)
- Works more like a prime than a zoom
 

Last edited:

jasonlingwj

Member
Dec 2, 2007
165
0
16
Singapore
haha i heard famously of sigma lenses tending to peel off... :S for me it would be toki 116
 

luntut

Senior Member
Oct 19, 2007
1,885
0
36
Punggol
Own a 11-16mm f2.8.

Great wide angle lens for low light shooting.
Love the colour contrast

BUT
- 72mm filter (vignetting is unavoidable)
- Works more like a prime than a zoom
tokina 11-16 is using a 72mm filter?

did you get a counterfeit tokina 11-16?
 

yun10

Member
Nov 18, 2008
402
0
16
mi using tokina 11-16. But seldom use f2.8. f2.8 is a bonus la. But I try to put f5 and above for most pictures.

if you can buy nikon 10-24 or 12-24, you confirm can buy tokina 11-16. Its good enough. so you dont need to think too much if f2.8 is useful.
 

ianhyk

New Member
Jun 8, 2007
337
0
0
Seletar, Singapore
www.flickr.com
Hi,
2.8 is not necessary for landscape photography, but you might consider using the UWA for event coverage purposes too and that's where 2.8 may be necessary in low light.

I would suggest either the nikon 10-24 or the tokina 11-16. both are very fine lenses.
 

roaringflamer

Member
Jun 16, 2009
274
0
16
Singapore
thanks for the replies so far! i think budget wise im gonna narrow down to sub 1k, meaning that the nikkors are out so now down to these 3

tokina 12-24
tokina 11-16
sigma 10-22 (3.5 version better or variable aperture version better?)
 

tofie

Member
Apr 18, 2006
248
0
16
West Zone
Frankly, the decision also depends on your current lenses you own....

For me, I have the 18-200mm and 35mm f/1.8 lens, thats why I get the Tokina 11-16mm to complete my A team....

Again, also depends on what you wanna shoot and your style.... for me, I am always using 11mm for landscape most of the time...
 

vickee

Member
Nov 8, 2008
89
0
6
hello all! as above. looking to go into more landscape and having a wider fov. so planning to take the plunge and get a uwa lens. listed some below so perhaps users can give their feedback? most im wondering whether its worth it to get a 2.8 or will a 4 suffice?

1. nikkon 10-24 3.5-4.5
2. nikkon 12-24 4
3. tokina 11-16 2.8
4. tokina 12-24 4
5. sigma 10-22 3.5

i got the nikon 10-24. i love the range. (i always use it at 10 or 24)

i think the additional 1 mm means a lot at wide angle.
At 24mm (36 on dx), i am also able to use it as a normal walkabout.
yes it overlaps my 18-200, but at least I will not have to change lens all the time.
I use it much more than my 18-200 during my trips.

for tokina 11-16, the f2.8 and price is a very attractive factor.
i think the zoom range is a little too small for convenience sake. at 16, it is still too wide for normal walkabout. And of course the missing 1mm.

i am so lazy. haha
 

roaringflamer

Member
Jun 16, 2009
274
0
16
Singapore
haha i see >.< ah wells cost is really a factor, plus the 2.8 is very tempting to allow me to shoot wide angle indoors as well hah
 

iBishop

New Member
Feb 17, 2010
594
0
0
the IQ and bokeh of tokina 11-16 is amazing with that price tag
should really consider it
 

JeffryZ

New Member
Sep 17, 2007
446
0
0
I had both the Sigma 10- 20mm (variable) and Tokina 11-16mm. I sold the Sigma- not bad, just liked the Tokina more. Better image quality (my opinion), less distortion and CA (still there but not as bad) and build. The faster f/ stop has been very useful in low light situations too. Nikon was out of my budget so I did not try it.
 

geraldkhoo

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2007
2,678
2
38
The Tiny Red Dot
I used to own the Tokina 12-24, but later upgraded to the Tokina 11-16 because of the following reasons...

1. better IQ (this is my most impt reason. even at a smaller aperture, the 11-16 is sharper)
2. f/2.8 (1 more stop which is better for lower light environment)

however, after using the 11-16, I do miss the range of the 12-24... but for me, the IQ is important, so I'll still go for the 11-16.
 

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,635
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
My personal opinion is that f/2.8 is superfluous, because my landscape shots are usually at f/8 or more.
I'm using tokina 12-24 f/4, mainly coz I felt it was the best value for money, and the focal range suited
my needs.
i was contemplating on this tokina 12-24 f4 before, but when i read the reviews... they say CA is so bad for this lens, so i got the 11-16 f2.8 instead, fast and sharp indeed... but i find that for me, the 12-24 is more useful range. so, i just wanna ask you bro, since you have it, how is the lens performance? can you post some pic you took with the 12-24? thanks!
 

Last edited: