Wide angle advice.

FFemtRN5287 · Dec 31, 2011

Looking for advice on a wide angle lens for my D7000. Most of my photo interest is in landscape. I'd like to spend </=$1000. I halfway torn between a Nikon or a Tokina. Nikon leaves me with the options of 10-24/3.5-4.5 and 12-24/4 for within $200 of each other and the Tokina 11-16/2.8 for about the same price range. What are everyone's thoughts on these lenses for landscape work? I suppose I might also find myself using it from time to time in an indoor, lower light setting. Can anyone shed some additional light on differences between the three in terms of usability and IQ?

cgipson1 · Dec 31, 2011

The Nikon rocks image quality (I have one).. and has a wider range. Spot on, and fast AF also.

The Tokina (haven't used one) supposedly also has excellent IQ, and has the advantage of the 2.8 aperture for low light. I have heard that the autofocus on these is spotty, and it searches a lot.

xyphoto · Dec 31, 2011

I am actually going to suggest spending some more money to get the Nikon 14-24. The image quality is amazing and it holds a very high resale value. Plus when you are ready to upgrade to full frame, you will be all set with an amazing lens.

cgipson1 · Dec 31, 2011

xyphoto said:
I am actually going to suggest spending some more money to get the Nikon 14-24. The image quality is amazing and it holds a very high resale value. Plus when you are ready to upgrade to full frame, you will be all set with an amazing lens.

very good call.. but almost $2k new.. and not much less used....

FFemtRN5287 · Dec 31, 2011

Being that landscape is my primary interest, $2k isn't insanely outrageous to me. Its not completely out of the running if it is truly worth it in terms of IQ. The faster lens would be, I'd guess, much nicer for indoor handheld shots.

cgipson1 · Dec 31, 2011

Typically you shoot landscapes in the "sweet spot" of your lens.. usually mid-aperture (F8 to F11) as that is typically the sharpest on most lenses. So you don't really need a large aperture on a lens used primarily for landscapes. Typically you want the larger aperture for portraiture, but doing portraiture with a wide angle can lead to distortion in the faces of your subjects... so usually not a good idea. Indoor architecture shots... a large aperture can be very helpful... but typically you will still want to use a tripod, so it is not absolutely necessary.

So really it is your call.. what do you want to spend, what do you plan to shoot.. etc! Any of the Pro level lenses from Nikon (like the 14-24) are wonderful, sharp lenses.. just depends on whether you "need" them!

FFemtRN5287 · Dec 31, 2011

Thank you for the insight. Still working on reading "understanding exposure" and learning quite a bit from it. Kind of weighing out right now whether to spend $2k on one great wide angle lens, or $1k on a middle of the road wide angle and the additional $1k on a larger telephoto down the line, or some formal classes.

480sparky · Dec 31, 2011

I got my 10-24 Nikkor before I really got serious about eventually going full-frame. The 14-24 is on my wish list now, but that will be after an FX body.

If you know for sure you're sticking with a DX format, I'd say spring for the 10-24. If your long-term plans include a trip into FXland, indulge yourself with the 14-24.

djacobox372 · Dec 31, 2011

Ultra-wide DX lenses are the one category where the nikon brand doesn't hold a distinct advantage over the third party. I'd go for the Tokina.

JohnS. · Dec 31, 2011

cgipson1 said:
Typically you shoot landscapes in the "sweet spot" of your lens.. usually mid-aperture (F8 to F11) as that is typically the sharpest on most lenses. So you don't really need a large aperture on a lens used primarily for landscapes. Typically you want the larger aperture for portraiture, but doing portraiture with a wide angle can lead to distortion in the faces of your subjects... so usually not a good idea. Indoor architecture shots... a large aperture can be very helpful... but typically you will still want to use a tripod, so it is not absolutely necessary.

So really it is your call.. what do you want to spend, what do you plan to shoot.. etc! Any of the Pro level lenses from Nikon (like the 14-24) are wonderful, sharp lenses.. just depends on whether you "need" them!

This is where I would go for the Tokina. Otherwise, you can't go wrong with Nikon glass!

MK3Brent · Jan 1, 2012

I have a tokina 12-24, absolutely love it. Very versatile lens. Great in low light. Relatively inexpensive too.
Maybe rent each that you're looking at, and see what fits for you.

63zora · Jan 2, 2012

I second on the third-party Tokina. I have a 11-16 and love it. Its a 2.8 whereas the Nikon DX SWA lenses are not, so it gives you some more versalitity. Although I almost always use this lens around the f/9-f/11, having the 2.8 allows you to do some indoor or lowlight handheld shots that you probably wouldnt be able to do otherwise. Another selling point for me was the resale value of this particular Tokina. You can pretty much buy it used/new and resell and what you paid for -- something to keep in mind if you opt to go FX later. I don't have any issues for it "searching" while autofocusing as mentioned above, but I dont have the Nikons to compare. The focal range is kind of limited, but I guess it falls in line with the next DX mid-range zooms and it doesnt bother me for my purposes.
I dont think many will argue its the sharpest, best-built, and fastest SWA that doesn't break the bank. That being said, I would still love to upgrade to the Nikon 14-24 as my photography improves...and the bank gets bigger

.