Alternatives to the 12-24 mm?

[Cacia]

Somebody that's a top notch regular here (Warren?)...I cannot recall, prefers a similiar lense more and I looked at his site and thought I liked the lense perspective better also.

Was it Parabolic? Any suggestions appreciated, I am shopping for a replacement but thought I'd like to try something different.

Also, whats the conventional wisdom on Sigma lenses? Is there a website where you can see the same shot taken with different lenses?

 

[alcina]

Tokina has the new "must have" lens the 10-17...everyone who has one loves it.

Sigma has the 10-20 UWA - check for mounts. Tamron has a contender in this range, too.

I think you shoot Nikon? Not sure if Nikon has something commonly used in this range, but someone will chime in.

As for Sigma, you're going to get a whole bunch of answers. Some people think they aren't as good or have more problems than Nikon/Canon lenses. So far, I haven't seen that this is conclusive AND I have never had a problem with any Sigma lens.

I personally currently have several Sigmas and will be adding another one this week:
Sigma 18-200...the old version
Sigma 17-70 macro...wouldn't be without this, wonderful lens
Sigma 50-150 2.8...pretty new for me and I've only used it extensively twice so far. I like it a lot, especially for the money. It is not an underwater lens.
Sigma 30 1.4...my next purchase, again not for underwater.
Sigma 10-20...used to have it, adored it, flooded it Replaced with Canon's 10-22 coz they had dropped in price but would have been perfectly happy with another Sigma 10-20.

See if Nikon has a forum like Canon's POTN - on Canon's there are "archives" of shots with various lenses - extremely helpful in seeing what is what.

HTH

 

[Cacia]

thanks!

why is the 10-17 so popular? (I just know what my eye/brain finds appealing and don't know why)

I'll check the Tokina site, merci.

I'm thinking about trying to make the money go further once I am reimbursed for the 12-24mm.

 

[alcina]

It's fast, accurate, gives a great viewing angle, allows close focusing, is a fisheye so a bit of a different perspective than a standard WA.

It's also the new kid on the block and is something different to get people excited about shooting the same scenes differently. It's a nice lens.

Really depends what you are wanting to shoot as to which will suit you best, but I don't think you'd be disappointed with the 10-17.

 

[Cacia]

I have the 10.5 already, would it be redundant?

I think those Sigma lenses are priced so much better...

maybe I could get two---cause I need a standard lense which is what my 12-24mm served as. Group shots of people, etc, at 24mm. 12mm for wrecks when I wanted wider angle.

 

[alcina]

No, it's not redundant with the 10.5. The 10.5 is a pretty specific lens. The Tokina 10-17 is actually pretty flexible and will be good for a good range of shots.

Sigma's got some nice 17-x and 18-x 2.8 (I think) lenses for group stuff on land...not sure how they'd go underwater. I have been using my 17-70 extensively for people stuff. Wouldn't be wide enough for wrecks, but your 10.5 would be the go there.

Or one of those and the 10-20 or Tokina 10-17 would be a nice combo.

 

[Warren_L]

Somebody that's a top notch regular here (Warren?)...I cannot recall, prefers a similiar lense more and I looked at his site and thought I liked the lense perspective better also.

Was it Parabolic? Any suggestions appreciated, I am shopping for a replacement but thought I'd like to try something different.

Also, whats the conventional wisdom on Sigma lenses? Is there a website where you can see the same shot taken with different lenses?

Hi Catherine, what happened to your 12-24?

As a caveat, I've not used the Tokina 10-17 - I've only held one once from someone I know who has one, but have not used it. My only knowledge on the lens is really just from specs, but you should consider some differences other than the focal length range.

The 10-17 is a fisheye lens and the 12-24 (Nikon) is wide angle zoom, but not a fisheye lens. I do own a Nikon 10.5 fisheye which I absolutely love for underwater work (wreck photography in particular). The fisheye will make straight lines curved, so both the Tokina 10-17 and Nikon 10.5 will be similar in this respect. However, with the Tokina zoomed into the longer end of its range, it might produce an image that is slightly curvy when compared to a non-fisheye lens like the Nikon 12-24 which is zoomed into the same focal length - this might lead me to think the Tokina 10-17 might have limited use out of the water especially at the longer end of its focal length range, at least when compared to a non-fisheye lens of the same focal length.

I'm not certain also how much difference this might make, but the Tokina uses a 6 bladed diaphragm (I don't believe it is rounded either) and the Nikon 10.5 uses a rounded 7 bladed diaphragm. Typically, with fewer blades in the diaphragm, it can result in harder out-of-focus areas of an image taken with the lens (i.e. areas outside the depth of field) whereas more blades (and rounded at that) will result in generally softer and more gradual blurring of the out-of-focus areas. Do a google on 'bokeh' - there are probably better explanations out there than I can give.

Also, the Nikon 10.5 is an f/2.8 versus the Tokina 10-17's f/3.5. As to how much of a difference this makes - not sure since I haven't used the Tokina, but in low light conditions for autofocus (if you use autofocus), I'd take every advantage the larger aperature of the f/2.8 offers. And as well, there should be a potentially shallower DOF.

The Tokina shorter focal length of 10mm versus the Nikon 10.5mm will make a difference, but how much? Not really sure, but I suspect probably not a lot.

I suppose I'd really only be able to make an assessment for myself if I were to actually use one - but for now, these may be things to consider.

 

[Warren_L]

I have the 10.5 already, would it be redundant?

I think those Sigma lenses are priced so much better...

maybe I could get two---cause I need a standard lense which is what my 12-24mm served as. Group shots of people, etc, at 24mm. 12mm for wrecks when I wanted wider angle.

The Tokina 10-17 at 17mm will produce a slightly different image than the Nikon 12-24 at 17mm.

 

[Cacia]

Thanks

Hi Catherine, what happened to your 12-24?

Flooded..should I try it in my D-100? I am assuming it is toast, I plan to get reimbursed the purchase price. Is there a graveyard for this Nikkor glass, because it is counterintuitive to me that somebody isn't salvaging the glass.

 

[dbh]

I sold my 12-24 after 2 trips with it. I did not like it at all. I replaced it with a Sigma 15mm FE which I really like. That being said, I have a Tokina 10-17 on order and should give it a work out in October. It should be like the Nikon 10.5 and the Sigma 15mm in one lens.

Dave