High quality ultra-wide angle DX lens

[jsecordphoto]

I feel like most companies just aren't going to put as much work into a lens for crop bodies. I mean they are mostly marketed to hobbyists and the like. I can't think of any lenses for crop that'll compare to the 14-24. I LOVE my Tokina 16-28, but I can't say the 11-16 is nearly as sharp especially in the corners. The rokinon 14mm is known to be very sharp and great on FF cameras, but I have heard that their new 10mm for crop bodies falls pretty short.

 

[hamlet]

Then just get the 14-24/2.8 and be done with it.

I was looking more towards the new tamron. But i just didn't like spending 3 grand on the d750 knowing that i don't really like the camera.

 

[hamlet]

I feel like most companies just aren't going to put as much work into a lens for crop bodies. I mean they are mostly marketed to hobbyists and the like. I can't think of any lenses for crop that'll compare to the 14-24. I LOVE my Tokina 16-28, but I can't say the 11-16 is nearly as sharp especially in the corners. The rokinon 14mm is known to be very sharp and great on FF cameras, but I have heard that their new 10mm for crop bodies falls pretty short.

Sigma's 18-35 comes the closest to addressing the dx markets needs for quality in the wide angle area.

 

[480sparky]

But i just didn't like spending 3 grand on the d750 knowing that i don't really like the camera.

I'm confused. Why are you shopping for a DX lens when you want to buy an FX body?

Sigma's 18-35 comes the closest to addressing the dx markets needs for quality in the wide angle area.

Forget the 'markets needs'. What are YOUR needs? What are YOU looking for in a lens? Specifically. Not just, "No, that one won't do".

 

[PaulWog]

Then just get the 14-24/2.8 and be done with it.

I was looking more towards the new tamron. But i just didn't like spending 3 grand on the d750 knowing that i don't really like the camera.

The only reason you should not like the D750 is that it's not the D810, or if you need 1/8000 shutter speed. Otherwise, it's an *insane* camera. The focusing system is crazy good, the buffer is pretty decent, and that tilting screen... you have no idea how useful a tilting screen is (FOR PHOTOGRAPHY!!!). If I could buy a camera right now, I'd get the D750. I'm all about spending $500+ more if it means big improvements... the D810 fits into that price-jump category... but the D750 is in a totally different category compared to the D810. Also, size is a fair factor... the D810 is pretty enormous, the D750 is a more manageable size. Honestly, the D750 seems like it is the camera for you... plus, doesn't it have a much better low light focusing sensor? Big plus!

The full frame counterparts to the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16, and Nikon 10-24 are all fairly expensive. You have to remember, too, that crop sensors flourish at the ultra long end... once you get to 300mm+, the difference is apparent. The same thing is true of full frame sensors, they flourish at that ultra wide angle in comparison to crop sensors. And, as far as low light photography goes, you get 1-1.5 stops worth of performance on the ISO end of things comparing same generation FX vs. DX.

I know you want low light performance, I know you want corner-to-corner sharpness, and I know you want ultrawide performance. That means you cannot settle for ANYTHING other than FX. If I could rent the newest next-to-highest-end consumer camera every year for $500, I would be tempted... you had a whole explanation about why you sold your D3200, so I am fairly certain you would too. Get the D750, it will retain a good resale value.

As far as lenses go, you have a 70-200 f2.8 already... you want ultrawide... so wait on the Tamron 15-30. But honestly, get a move on with the camera body... what is it the D750 doesn't do that you really want? If you want insane buffer size, wait on the D7200, or get the D7100, and keep it and shoot with FX and DX.

Remember: Cameras are only so good at doing one task. If you want to do everything to an insane degree of perfection, you need more than one camera body. The D810 won't cut it for many sports photographers. The D7100 won't cut it for many portrait photographers. Either would suffice for either job, but if you want to do that job with the best possible gear, focusing in on the best possible quality money can buy (speaking to FX and DX sensors only), then you need to select the right gear for the right job. The D750 is going to get every job done admirably... I want it more and more every day, and if I weren't in school right now and had a steady income, I would've pounced on it instead of the 18-35 Sigma. I'm instead waiting out for a couple years and 'making due' with what I've got... which is more than enough. Just one last thing to note: I'm not selling my work, I'm just showing it off, recording family memories, making art for personal prints and to post on flickr and the like... the benefit of shelling $3000-$4000 more on my gear would be in personal satisfaction more-so than actual results that anyone else will notice. If I set out to take a shot of an awesome rapids setting with my Sigma ultrawide at 10mm and my D5200, and I throw on a single ND filter, and shoot at f11 with my lens hood on, I'll get a great shot with corner-to-corner sharpness. Only downside is a bit of distortion, but it's not noticeable with that sort of shot. If I then throw a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 and a D810 on the same tripod, throw on the same ND filter, and shoot at f16 with all the same settings, same framing at 15mm, all that, I bet you anything I'll end up with a shot that is pretty much indistinguishable unless if you want to throw that shot on a billboard. You'll get better colors and better distortion levels with the 14-24, those two things are what you'll notice, not the sharpness. The sharpness will only matter if you needed that D810 and you're printing laaarrrge. Want to sell a 1920x1080 wallpaper (hahaha, I don't know if there's really a market for that)? The sharpness difference will still be hard to tell. With that said, if I had the cash, I'd be all over that expensive stuff.

Conclusion: Reconsider the D750!!!!!!!! Also, try to get your mind off of the sharpness end of things. Contrast and color rendition is *far* more important for SOOOO many reasons, so much of the time. I love corner-to-corner sharpness, I love being able to crop, I love being able to pixel peep and drool over my gear. Maybe I should post some Sigma 10-20 tests for you to show you how good my copy is compared to a lot of what you've probably seen... but remember, why do you want that sharpness? Who's going to notice, and what will it do for you and your photography? Is it worth missing out on the rest of the seasons in 2014, and into 2015, losing all of those shots you could've gotten on a capable DSLR? If you can "make due" with a point-and-shoot right now, why is it you need the very best later on?

 

[bc_steve]

I know you already poo poo'd it but the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is an excellent DX ultra wide angle lens

 

[hamlet]

But i just didn't like spending 3 grand on the d750 knowing that i don't really like the camera.

I'm confused. Why are you shopping for a DX lens when you want to buy an FX body?

Sigma's 18-35 comes the closest to addressing the dx markets needs for quality in the wide angle area.

Forget the 'markets needs'. What are YOUR needs? What are YOU looking for in a lens? Specifically. Not just, "No, that one won't do".

I want a ultra-wide crop lens that can produce pictures as good as my 70-200 vrii. What i've seen as of now, isn't doing it.

 

[hamlet]

I know you already poo poo'd it but the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is an excellent DX ultra wide angle lens

That's because it has no af, get the dxii, it's a pretty good lens.

 

[480sparky]

I want a ultra-wide crop lens that can produce pictures as good as my 70-200 vrii. What i've seen as of now, isn't doing it.

Then get the 14-24/2.8 Yeah, it's an FX lens, but that doesn't prevent one from using it on a DX body.

 

[480sparky]

That's because it has no af, get the dxii, it's a pretty good lens.

Huh?

From their website:

Tokina’s exclusive One-touch Focus Clutch Mechanism allows the photographer to switch between AF and MF simply by snapping the focus ring forward for AF and back toward the lens mount for manual focusing.

 

[hamlet]

I want a ultra-wide crop lens that can produce pictures as good as my 70-200 vrii. What i've seen as of now, isn't doing it.

Then get the 14-24/2.8 Yeah, it's an FX lens, but that doesn't prevent one from using it on a DX body.

That lens is wasted on a crop camera.

 

[bc_steve]

Th

That's because it has no af, get the dxii, it's a pretty good lens.

Huh?

From their website:

Tokina’s exclusive One-touch Focus Clutch Mechanism allows the photographer to switch between AF and MF simply by snapping the focus ring forward for AF and back toward the lens mount for manual focusing.

The original had no internal focus motor and relied on D7000's screw drive. I believe the main difference with the newer one is that they added focus motor so it could be used with D3x00 and D5x00 cameras.

I find myself using manual focus for wide landscape shots anyways. The cheapest way to make your lenses "sharper" is to get the focus perfect.

 

[hamlet]

Relaible manual focusing isn't always the best thing on cameras that have a very small viewfinder like the motorless lower end bodies. I had great difficulties with it.

 

[480sparky]

.........I find myself using manual focus for wide landscape shots anyways. The cheapest way to make your lenses "sharper" is to get the focus perfect.

When it comes to UWA's, AF is almost useless in most cases.

 

[hamlet]

I'm not most of the cases type of photographer. Sometimes you'll find my dslr at the bottom of a lake, other times i'm just taking selfies with Poof.