Best wide angle lens

billbaillie · May 2, 2012

Hi all, I am new to the forum and looking for some feedback. I have a job photographing gardens and the client is looking for wide, pin sharp, high res images. Money is an issue as my budget is not huge. I am using a Nikon D200. What lens would you recommend? I have been looking at the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM ?

Many Thanks

RichardsTPF · May 2, 2012

Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens 2163 B&H Photo

This one looks good. What is your budget?

billbaillie · May 2, 2012

Could probably go as far as £600 at a push. What about Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S? Edge to edge sharpness is very important and as the D200 would use DX lenses I thought the wider the better without going fish-eye.

spacefuzz · May 2, 2012

billbaillie said:
Could probably go as far as £600 at a push. What about Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S? Edge to edge sharpness is very important and as the D200 would use DX lenses I thought the wider the better without going fish-eye.

You are not going to get edge to edge sharpness at 600 pounds. To get that you need a lens on the level of the nikon 14-24 / pro series type lens. Lenses like the 10-24 is going to have mad distortion and softness in the corners.

If its a business and you will be shooting wide for money often, pony up for the good gear. If its a one time job, RENT.

billbaillie · May 2, 2012

Thank you, do you think I will get the edge to edge sharpness I need with a DX lens?

shady195 · May 2, 2012

Bill I would honestly save up and spend a bit more. I have used the Sigma 10-20 and the Nikon 12-24, while they are great lenses, they so suffer from IMO quite a bit of softness around the corners at smaller focal lengths and you said that is important to you.

I bought the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and I could not be happier, its about $700 USD but compared to the sigma/Nikon I think its honestly a better lens, and obviously much faster. I know a few people who wish they had just gotten the Tokina in the first place. Even wide open at 2.8 its still sharper in the corners then the sigma IMO, but anything above that just gets better and better.

http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC

Here is a shot I took with it, probably not the best example shot but still you can see its overall very sharp

Also any wide angel lens your going to get some degree of distortion, doesnt matter how nice the glass is or the camera, the Tokinas distortion can actually be corrected quite easily in photoshop compared to the Nikon, not sure about the sigma. As far as sticking with DX, there really is no need to go FX unless your going to be doing some really large prints, but to be honest even then I think depending on the size its quite debatable on the sensor size itself vs MP. Unless DX gets gone and everything becomes FX, I will continue to buy DX cameras

billbaillie · May 2, 2012

What about a prime lens, any recommendations?

billbaillie · May 2, 2012

That picture was very sharp, Tamron?

shady195 · May 2, 2012

billbaillie said:
That picture was very sharp, Tamron?

No thats the Tokina 11-16 2.8 I linked you too

cgipson1 · May 2, 2012

spacefuzz said:
billbaillie said:

Could probably go as far as £600 at a push. What about Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S? Edge to edge sharpness is very important and as the D200 would use DX lenses I thought the wider the better without going fish-eye.

Click to expand...

You are not going to get edge to edge sharpness at 600 pounds. To get that you need a lens on the level of the nikon 14-24 / pro series type lens. Lenses like the 10-24 is going to have mad distortion and softness in the corners.

If its a business and you will be shooting wide for money often, pony up for the good gear. If its a one time job, RENT.

I disagree.. the 10-24 does not have MAD distortion! lol! Have you ever even used one?

Lower Copeland Falls 1 by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

East Inlet Wall by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

Twisted Pine by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

shady195 · May 2, 2012

^ All wide angles have distortion to an extent, and to be honest in landscapes and pictures like you posted its almost non exisitant as their are so many different paths and almost no straight hard lines

Lightroom unless you tell it not to will also auto correct for it and odes a decent job, can get even better in photoshop if you do it yourself. Its the nature of the shape of the glass, does not matter if its a 400 dollar wide angle or a 2k dollar wide angle, there is going to be distortion present to some extent.

I wish I had the Nikon at times for that little extra focal reach, but I would take the tokina any day of the week.

cgipson1 · May 2, 2012

billbaillie said:
Thank you, do you think I will get the edge to edge sharpness I need with a DX lens?

The 14-24 is famous for edge to edge sharpness... and should be! It is a top end lens! The 10-24 is (IMO) the best UWA lens for DX cameras... although I will concede the Tokina is almost as good (maybe even as good)! It is NOT a kit lens.. it is sharp, focuses fast an accurately! It doesn't have the purple fringing CA that Tokina's are known for.. and does not have the Sigma lottery backfocusing issues that many Sigma's have. It is a NIKON... that says something in itself!

I am selling mine... and the only reason I am selling it.. is because I AM going to the 14-24! That is the only UWA I would replace it with....

cgipson1 · May 2, 2012

shady195 said:
^ All wide angles have distortion to an extent, and to be honest in landscapes and pictures like you posted its almost non exisitant as their are so many different paths and almost no straight hard lines

Lightroom unless you tell it not to will also auto correct for it and odes a decent job, can get even better in photoshop if you do it yourself. Its the nature of the shape of the glass, does not matter if its a 400 dollar wide angle or a 2k dollar wide angle, there is going to be distortion present to some extent.

I wish I had the Nikon at times for that little extra focal reach, but I would take the tokina any day of the week.

Yes.. just like most GARDENS... which is what the OP was asking about shooting!

shady195 · May 2, 2012

cgipson1 said:
shady195 said:

^ All wide angles have distortion to an extent, and to be honest in landscapes and pictures like you posted its almost non exisitant as their are so many different paths and almost no straight hard lines

Lightroom unless you tell it not to will also auto correct for it and odes a decent job, can get even better in photoshop if you do it yourself. Its the nature of the shape of the glass, does not matter if its a 400 dollar wide angle or a 2k dollar wide angle, there is going to be distortion present to some extent.

I wish I had the Nikon at times for that little extra focal reach, but I would take the tokina any day of the week.

Click to expand...

Yes.. just like most GARDENS... which is what the OP was asking about shooting!

I completely missed that

and I wasnt lashing out at you about your post at all, it was more or less directed to the "MAD DISTORTION" post by someone else. I will agree, I have seen shots taken with the 14-24 and it is an spectacular lens.

mikeduk · May 2, 2012

I wouldn't bother with the 14-24, its very large, very heavy, very expensive and really quite specialised. Also you need a special adapter to attach filters as the dome lens doesn't support standard ones. If you want pro quality I'd look at the 17-35 f/2.8

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8

You should also consider the Nikkor 12-24 DX. I owned one for a number of years and was very pleased with the image quality. It's not pro glass but its very good. I only sold mine because I moved to FX. If you don't mind second hand you can pick them up on eBay for about 450 GBP.

Nikon 12-24mm