wide angle zoom - DSLR

May I know your recommendation comparing Nikkor 12-24mm pros/cons w

17-35mm AF zooms. The application is narrow for an architect shooting

interiors for publication on website. My past experience was shooting

our children athletes with 8008s, + AF 75-300 which we have. My wife

is the architect, digital camera is D70, and her website developer

recommends 17-35 F2.8 due to the need for bright. I suspect the 12-

24mm zoom made specifically for DSLR is less bright with F4, but a

good match. I have no experience with DSLR so greatly value your

experience and inputs where I lack experience. If you recommend I

purchase 17 - 35 for brightness, is a used lens risky? (So as not to

break the bank.) Need I be concerned about internal cam wear? Thanks-

a-million. Kind regards, Otto Kerner

This is a tough choice. Based on the test reports and sample images I've seen the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor produces more rectilinear photos with less barrel distortion. On the other hand, when used on a Nikon dSLR it has the focal range equivalent to 25.5mm-52.5mm, which may not be wide enough for some interior photography.

 

The 12-24/4 Nikkor is equivalent to 18-36mm, which is wide enough for all but the most confining interiors. And any barrel distortion seems to clear up pretty well by the 18mm setting (actual, not equivalent). Since the distortion appears to be ordinary barrel type, not waveform, it's easily corrected in the digital darkroom.

 

The lens speed isn't really relevant since interiors should be shot using a tripod mounted camera anyway. And contrary to some complaints, the D70 viewfinder is more than bright enough to enable good compositions in typical indoor lighting with an f/4 lens.

 

For interiors I'd go with the 12-24 Nikkor. I've seen sample images taken with comparable third party zooms in this focal range - Tamron, Sigma and Tokina - and while they are as sharp stopped down at the centers and nearly as sharp at the edges, they all suffered from some waveform distortion which would be noticeable in architectural photography and which couldn't be easily corrected during post processing.

 

Also, the 12-24DX Nikkor, like the 17-55/2.8DX Nikkor, is more affordable than the 17-35/2.8 AF-S Nikkor, even considering the current sale price and rebate on the latter.

 

Best wishes. Show us some photos if you can. I always enjoy architectural photography - it's a challenge to do and a pleasure to see when done well.

I went through the same exercise and, for the reasons stated above, bought the 12-24mm.

 

Regards.

I went through this aswell but needed the lens on the way to the shoot (risky) so i got the 10-20 sigma on the way. I had heaps of mono's so light was not that much of a concern given they were really small studio appartments.

 

I found it to be great images were pretty good and the client was really happy. Got the cheque that afternoon and paid of the lens when it cleared 3 days latter.

 

I tried to get the nikor 12-24 but given time frame and the fact that my pro store didn't have it in stock i got the sigma and pretty happy with it.

 

Takes great skate ramp shots as well. I use it on a D2X which is pretty hard on a len's and found no problems. If I had the choice I would have got the nikor but i'm still happy and not sure I'd swap it considering the $$ difference. I paid $740 Aust.

 

regards

Mark

Don't forget about the Tokina 12-24 f/4. I picked one up before Christmas for about half the cost of the nikon. So far so good. Got a few example shots in my photo section.

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=555746">12-24</a>

Can't comment on the 12-24mm, but the 17-35mm is one of my favorites for use on our

D1 for product shots. No noticeable distortion and terrific resolving power for a wide-

angle zoom when used up close. Only you can decide if it would be wide enough for your

needs but in terms of results, you can't miss with it. IMO, buying a used modern Nikkor is

preferable to a new one if the model you want is available on the open market. My

experience has been that if there is a problem, it shows up immediately, not down the

road (with the exception of physical damage). You should be safe with any of the metal-

bodied AF-S lenses on the used market and ought not have to pay >$1K for a 17-35mm.

Good luck in your search.

I use the 12-24mm exclusively for interior shots. Always with

strobes and tripods.

I do some real estate photography in our area and use the Sigma 12-24. I would go with the 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20, you won't be sorry.

 

http://www.realestatephotographer.org

I have a D70 and the Nikon 12-24. Useful kit, but for shooting architecture, I'd look out.

 

While not an "architecture photographer" soon after I snagged the 12-24, I shot a series of pictures (tripod shots) of some doors/intricate metal fire escapes and the like in some nice late afternoon lighting. So there were horiz/verts all over the place.

 

I got pretty nasty barrel distortion. Also difficult to near impossible to align horizontals/verticals with the setup, even being pretty careful and trying (I blame the D70 VF for this).

 

Just another example, but took a group shot recently with folks packed tightly against a wall (small house, few options). Again, a tripod shot with some trials shots and reasonable setup effort, but "all the kings horses" didn't result in aligned verts/horz (walls, corners) in the final shots.

 

Does Nikon make a bubble level for the D70? Might help in shooting wide.

 

Scott

It just depends on how wide you need to go. I have the Nikon 17-35 and the Sigma 10-20 and they are both great. I will have to say that the 10-20 is really WIDE.