Wide angel Lens

<p>I own A nikon d3100 + kit lens + af-s 50 f1.8+ af-s 55-200<br>

Now I am planning to purchase a wide angel lens for environmental portrait, and landscape.<br>

I have some optins in my mind but I can not conclude.<br>

1)sigma 8-16 ( almost satisfied till read some reviews about focusing problems,)<br>

2)sigma 10-20 f 3.5<br>

3)Tokina 12-24 dx II ( with built in motor to auto focus with d3100)<br>

4)nikon 10-24(the last bust not the least, last only because its far more expensive than others and I would buy it if and only if non of the third parties are satisfying. </p>

<p>I have the Tokina and can recommend it. However mine is the non motor model that I bought several years ago. I have no complaints about that lens. I do not know about the others but I would trust that the Nikon model would be excellent.. </p>

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20 f 4-5.6 and its a great lens, which I use on a Nikon D90. For most people this is adequate, rather than the more expensive f3.5 model, since for landscapes you rarely use such small apertures. For environmental portraits you might appreciate f3.5 but you will still have a lot more DOF than with a longer lens - the f4-5.6 and a 35mm 1.8 DX might be a good combination at a similar cost.<br>

You might also want to consider the Tokina 11-16 which I have heard a lot of good things about.</p>

<p>The Sigma 10-20 3.5 is expensive when you have to buy filters(82mm) the 4-5.6 version has standaard 77mm filtersize.</p>

<p>Since you're currently shooting with only a short telephoto (the 50mm) and longer right now, I suggest you test/borrow/rent something wider first, to see just how wide you really want to go. The 8-16mm, for example, is stupifyingly wide, and would only lend itself to environmental portraits when you're going for a very, highly stylized look with human beings just about nowhere but dead center in the frame.<br /><br />In practice, you're probably better off looking at someting in the 17-55 range. Tamron's is popular for Nikon users, and Sigma makes something pretty good in that range. Nikon's 17-55/2.8 is the best, but is expensive. <br /><br />I use a 17-55 quite happily on DX bodies for the sort of use you describe. I also use a 10-20mm when I need much more dramatic, shorter focal lengths - but that's essentially never for portraiture, considering the severe perspective issues that come up at such short focal lengths. The 10-20mm is a favorite of mine for difficult interiors, some landscape-type situations ... but not for anything I'd normally think of as portraiture on a regular basis, because the perspective distortion is very limitiing, composition-wise.<br /><br />If you're shooting people, the gap you're talking about leaving yourself between 20/24mm and your 50mm is a very big hole right where you'll find youself wishing you could shoot for people. A 17-55-or-so strikes me as a much smarter direction to go.</p>

<p>Thanks Nigel.I also read amazing reviews about Tokina 11-16, I wish I could get it as its price is also reasonable but unfortunately it will not auto focus mounted on my d3100.<br>

anyhow since you have the sigma lens how is ur experiment with lens focusing. besides I appreciate if u can give me hints on distortion since I am planing to use it for environmental portrait and minimal distortion is really appreciated. </p>

<p>I have the older version of the Tokina 11-16mm (without the focusing motor) and like it very much, with one exception. If there is a current one with a motor and it is similar to the original, it would be a very fine lens, but with a very limited zoom range. Sometimes it can be annoying to have to change lenses often because of that limitation. For me, the f/2.8 maximum aperture is important. Nevertheless, if I were buying now, I would give the Sigma strong consideration because of the 8mm focal length. It wasn't available when I bought the Tokina. I don't know where the report of focusing problems came from. Photozone gave it a good review (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/625-sigma816f4556dx?start=1">link</a>).</p>

<p>When you say that you have the "kit lens" I assume that you mean the 18-50mm Nikon or thereabouts. If that's not the case, and you now have nothing shorter than the 50mm, a 12-24mm would be more appropriate. </p>

<p>Thanks ross. I wanted to ask you whether 12-24 at the end of 12 is wide enough for you shooting landscape or would suggest me wider? I mean how wider is 12 than the 18 which I have? </p>

<p>thanks hector ,<br>

this is something I read in several sites. I qoute 1 of them down here:</p>

<p align="left">"In dim light, it often won't focus at all, even with an excellent AF illuminator like the one in the Nikon D300.</p>

<p align="left">Even in broad daylight it sometimes won't focus, so take your finger off the shutter, tweak the manual focus ring, and try again."</p>

<p align="left"> </p>

<p>thanks matt,<br>

But I dont want to go for something very expensive and still get a similar range as my kit lens 18-55. Although the big aperture there is an advantage but that's not sort of lens im looking for now. </p>

<p>I dont recall having any specific auto focus issues with the Sigma 10-20.<br>

If you want to get an idea of how much wider 12 is than 18 take a look at the Nikon Lens Simulator -> <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/</a></p>

<p>Sometimes ago I had the same problem, picking a wide-angle zoom for my DX camera. After taking all options in consideration I went for Nikon 10-24. I know that is the most expensive option but also is the best option in long-term.</p>

<p>First, it offers a great range. 10mm is very wide... I never felt limited here. 24mm is the equivalent of 36mm on full frame. So the lens is good for all-round on street... to capture wide-angle scene, architecture or environmental portraits.</p>

<p>Optically the lens is very good. Excepting the first 2..3 mm the distortion are well controlled in comparison with the other offers. Sharp across the frame.</p>

<p>The build quality is very good. Plastic but solid, without compromises. Filter size is very convenient too: 77mm.</p>

<p>I use it now on D7000 and I'm happy with it.</p>

<p>I have the Tokina 11-16 and am ECSTATIC with it... For most people, I think that any lens that stops at 16mm (24mm full-frame "equivalent") is going to be problematic, but one that goes to 20 or 24 is not. I wanted the f2.8 aperture (mostly for shooting in the "sweet spot" at f5.6, actually) and would choose the same lens again (or the Sigma 8 - 16), but I'm an ultra-wide junkie.</p>

<p>I'd zero in on the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 if I were you. I think that the Nikon is an awful lot of money for someone who is shooting a D3100. For that money, you could get the Tokina AND another lens or a flash for your toy box.</p>

<p>Tokina announced that they are releasing an 11-16ii with coated glass aspherical and a motor that will af on the non motor type cameras<br />the expected date for Nikon is March<br />I purchased the 11-16 and really liked it when they announced the new version mine was still under the return period so I returned mine<br />hopefully they are reasonable on the price<br />I'll attach a picture that I took in Chicago with the 11-16 version 1 on my D7000<br>

the picture look much better then they come out reduced to 700 pixels</p><div></div>

<p>another pic</p><div></div>

<p>The Tokina 12-24mm F/4 and the Pentax DA 12-24mm F/4 are very much the same lens, until recently both companies were under one roof. Here are search results for the two lenses at the Pentax forum, if you choose to get more information about the Tokina (or thoughts of the Pentax variant). <a href="../search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=pentax+tokina+12-24mm+inurl%3A%2Fpentax-camera-forum%2F&qx=pentax+tokina+12-24mm">http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=pentax+tokina+12-24mm+inurl%3A%2Fpentax-camera-forum%2F&qx=pentax+tokina+12-24mm</a></p>

<p>I own the Sigma 10-20mm (variable aperture version) in Pentax mount and it has served me very well across its focal range. Of these two lenses, you would be pleased with your results with either one.</p>

<p>Don't forget the discontinued Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S DX ED-IF. Its fine performer.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the older 12-24 Tokina and love it. Theoretically I would prefer that is be a 2.8 but it works just fine at 4.0. I use it mostly for indoor situations that are too cramped to back up and use anything longer, and for some landscape.</p>

<p>Another one with the Tokina 12-24. Optically really good, excellent value for money too.<br>

If I'd be shopping now, it would be between the Nikon 10-24 and this Tokina (the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 being the third for me - I do not like the reverse zoom and focus on Sigma lenses) - because of the 24mm end. It adds a lot of versatility.<br>

The other ones, fine as they may be, are somewhat limited at the long end and more one-trick lenses, in my view. 16mm is frequently already wide enough for me. Wider than that becomes the type of photo where you really have to plan how to use the wide-ness. With most landscapes, it actually makes them just look large and empty. With people, the widest I'd like to go is in fact 24mm (on DX).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget the discontinued Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S DX ED-IF. Its fine performer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it is not discontinued where i live...</p>

<p>I do have both the Sigma 8-16mm and the nikkor 12-24.</p>

<p>I find the Sigma 8-16 a very good lens, spesialized yes, but very good.<br>

I think , for me at least, it is not easy to compose with a lens this wide but i know no other lens that gives this feel of perspective in a photo....</p>

<p>The Nikor 12-24 is also very nice, but realy different to work with (i think), the distortions ( all ultra wides have those..) are of a different nature. I find the 8-16 more usefull for work "in the city" (especcially old cities with narrow streets and the like) , whereas i find the 12-24 more usefull for landscapes out off the city or wide area's.. (difficult to explain in english, srry for that..).</p>

<p>The Nikkor 10-24 or 12- 24 ( 2mm more range opposed to fixed f4 ) are more versatile then the 8 -16, and more suited for the type of work you are asking about , i guess, because those give you more options on the "long " end of the zoom. </p>

<p> At the time i bought my Nikkor 12-24 the 10-24 was not available yet, but i tried the 10-24 later on and found the corners and edges for the 12-24 look better / less soft so i kept the 12-24 . It could be that the 10-24 i tried was not an optimal copy though, or my 12-24 is a very good copy, but that's the way it turned out for me..</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't have one, but I have heard good things about the Tokina. I considered that lens when I had my Canon 40D, but opted for the Canon 10-22, which was an amazing lens. Good luck.</p>

<p>Thanks Peter,<br>

Well actually the idea of getting d3100 came from place that I wanted to save money for buing some lenses.I think I will use the same approch for buying my lenses. I want the best one within my bodget. as nikon 10-24 in my local area is around 1200 usd and still there are good lenses like those u suggested I definatly take the nikon out of my list for my budgeting reason.</p>

<p>Thanks alot dennis,<br>

that I can call ur comment the best news,<br>

therfore, I think I should wait for the new 11-16. I wish also as they are constructing a new one they could little bit expand the range. I guse if that was the case they could make it the King in wide angels.<br>

Im really impressed with reviews on Tokina 11-16. anyhow I guse they have sacrificed the range cause they gave more value to aparture and build quality.</p>

<p>THanks steve,<br>

I think I should reconsider the sigma 10-20 vith variable f. I did not expect, but now many have reported their satisfaction with it. also considering its vrey low price compare to others made me tempted to try it.</p>

<p>Thanks Craig,<br>

Yes for me also is an unsolved debate. I dont know in case I decided to go with tokina I should chose 11-16 or 12-24 range. <br>

but when i consider my lenses,I noticed I enjoy 50 f1.8 compare to 18-50 and 55-200 which i havebesided its limitaion in focal lenth. sometimes I am forced to replace the 18-55 or 55-200 due to focal lenth isue but for me not a big headache.<br>

therfore here also I guse for me 11-16 will win due to I love its aparture going that large.</p>