Best Nikon wide angle for travelling?

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I am currently looking to buy a new Nikon wide angle lens for travelling purposes.<br>

I already have the very good Nikon 14-24 f 2.8 that I mainly use for work, since it really is heavy and cumbersome, and bringing it on more "touristic" trips when you want to try and travel light is not great, especially as I like to carry 1 or 2 more lenses with my Nikon D90 body as well.<br>

I am trying to find a lens which is not too heavy, but that would still have a good aperture, at least 3.5, to make it possible to shoot in the evening without having to use the flash too often, and one that would also give sharp images..<br>

I have been recomended the following : <br>

Nikon afs dx 10-24mm f3.5<br>

Sigma 8-16 f 3.5<br>

sigma 10-20mmm f 3.5</p>

<p>I have not had a very good experience with sigma in the past...so am not too much in favour of them...I did have a Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 which was fairly good, but sadly broke after many years of usage and travels...</p>

<p>Pontus</p>

 

<p>Why not consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8? It's an awesome lens, very sharp and f/2.8 throughout the zoom range which makes it a great low light lens plus it's small for a wide angle zoom.</p>

<p>I have the old variable aperture Sigma 10-20mm and it's my go-to UWA. 10mm is pretty wild and 20mm is fairly sedate. It's inevitable distortion is fairly easy to correct in post.</p>

<p>It's only 'weakness' is it only has a zoom range of x2, but I find the visual difference between 10 and 20 HUGE..:-)</p>

<p>Sadly, it's bit slow, but the wide angle reduces the effect of camera shake quite well!</p>

What Mark said - the Tokina is a winner.

<p>yes i just read a review about the Tokina, and it seems excellent, nowhere can I see any negative comments about it, and it is said to be extremely sharp, in fact the sharpest wide angle there might be for Nikon (in the ultra wide angles)<br>

i almost regret that I didnt know about this lens when i bought my nikon 14-24!!<br>

a small adittional question : <br>

a friend of mine is also looking for a new wide angle lens, but she has a canon D600. I have heard that the canon 10-22mm is good, any other recomendations would be great thanks!<br>

Pontus</p>

<p>Pontus - I heard the 10-22 is good for Canon, but there is also a new budget minded 10-18 for much cheaper. Probably should look at those two. And obviously the Tokina, etc. are available in Canon mount.</p>

<p>ah ok, i did not know that the Tokina was available in Canon mount also...that is good to know.</p>

<p>Back when I had my d300, I used the Sigma 8-16. I still miss that lens and it's construction was quite solid.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, for Nikon or Canon. I use it with my Nikon D300s for concerts and it's been excellent.</p><div></div>

<p>I always carry the Nikon 10-24 and the fisheye as well. This arrangement works out well in my travels. Hwvr, I find the 24-70 to be most useful. Even though there are occasions to use both the 10-24 and fisheye, I don't consider them indispensable - think mainly because one can always pan with the 24-70 to do multiple shots as a panorama when there is a need to cover a super-wide scene.</p>

<p>I've been using the tokina 11-16mm and can't find any fault with it. I'll be using it extensively today on a trip to a steam railroad. Not only is it wide, it is very fast at f2.8.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The best "travel" lens I've used is a Nikkor 18-200/3.5-5.6. It is slow, but surprisingly sharp. What does "slow" matter if you have ISO 25K at your disposal? I still don't have one of my own, but travel with three f/2.8 zooms which cover the same range, at a gross weight (with accessories) of 35 pounds, is beginning to wear on me.</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 always gets many votes, and for sure it's a lot of lens for the money. Which for me does not take away it is a really limited zoomrange, and hence never a lens that can be used alone. 16mm is still fairly wide. It is the one choice if you need f/2.8 - but if you do not, I'd really consider the Tokina 12-24 f/4 (which I had - really good lens and a lot cheaper), the Tokina 12-28 (haven't seen reviews yet, the extra bit of lenght is mighty nice) or the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 (slow, but good performer and not expensive).<br /> The new "budget" Canon wide-angle looks terrific from reviews, and has a very competitive price. For your friend, I would first look at that one.</p>

<p>I have had such good luck with the old Sigma 10-20mm for DX, that I hunted up an old Sigma 15-30mm for my FX when I added that to the inventory.<br>

There's nothing wrong in my book with any of the three big 'third-party' suppliers- Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina.<br>

I wouldn't get any new long lens without some kind of image stabilization these days, but for the ultrawide range, I've never missed it.</p>

<p>i have a sigma 15-30 i use on FX. killer lens. for DX, i have the older tokina 12-24, which has been very dependable. i find the longer range more useful than 2.8 aperture but YMMV. sort of depends on if you plan on using the UWA as a walkaround lens or just breaking it out when wide shots present themselves. in practice, i prefer the latter approach but YMMV. if i was buying today, i'd take a look at the tokina 12-28. if you really need fast aperture, the sigma 10-20/3.5 or the aforementioned 11-16 would be where i'd go. the nikon 10-24 is 4.5 at the long end, which isnt bad, but at $800, it's twice as much as lenses which essentially do the same thing. also, rather than flash, i'd consider a travel tripod for longer exposures and the ability to stop down when taking night shots.</p>

 

<p>I also very much like the 11-16mm Tokina but, as Wouter points out, its limited range pretty much requires you to carry another lens as well. When I bought mine, the Nikon 10-24mm wasn't available. That is a far more versatile lens.</p>

<p>Pontus, are you looking for a lens that wide? You liked the Tamron 17-50mm (another fine, low-cost lens) you once had. It can be a great travel lens, depending on what focal lengths you prefer to use and what else you are carrying. Would it make more sense for you to get another Tamron 17-50mm?</p>

<p>I had an 11-16 and loved it. But if you don't have a standard zoom as well, it's too limited (and kinda heavy). I think 10-20 would be a better travel buddy. or 10-24.</p>

<p>yes the small range may be a problem....<br>

I currently have a 50 mm f 1.4, a nikon 70-200mm f 2.8 and a Macro 60mm f 2.8 (and the 14-24 f 2.8 mentioned earlier)<br>

If I am planning to take alot of wildlife pictures, I generally bring the 70-200 (very heavy) with a 1.8 extender, and the macro. Also in the past the Tamron.<br>

But that is all very heavy if I just want to "stroll around" somewhere, lets say in a city, park or historical site, In that case i would just bring a wide angle.<br>

if course if this lens would stop at 16, i dont have any focal range in between that and my 50mm....which might be a bit limiting and a slight problem..<br>

I did like the tamron, and the fact that it was a 2.8 lens, although ocasionally in some situations i found it not to be sharp enough, and not always great in low light situations. That is also why I was pleased when i heard that the tokina was so crisp sharp...<br>

Pontus</p>

 

<p>I use a Nikon prime lens, a 20mm f 2.8 AF-D when I am faced with the same issue. Why? Because I already own it and it works fine on DX and FX sensor cameras. I love its small profile and light weight. The fact that it is not a zoom has not bothered me.<br>

Joe Smith </p>

<p>I bought the Tokina 11-16 2.8 last year and can't recommend it enough. I know the range is limited but I see that as a good thing as it forces me to think exclusively wide when I have this lens mounted. I use it in combination with the 16-85VR. The 11-16 2.8 is the lens that makes me hesitate at times moving up to an FX camera, because the quality you get for the price is really unmatched.</p>

<p>Hello Pontus,<br>

Last year I made a journey to some of the capitals of Europe and travelled with my Nikon 7000 and only two lenses:<br>

NIKON 10-24mm F3.5-4.5<br>

NIKON 18-200 MM f3.5-5.6<br>

Not heavy at all and lots of beautiful photos were brought back home. See in Photo.net under my name (Daniel Bruhin) the results. Do not forget the tripod por evening or night shots!<br>

Have a nice trip. Daniel.</p>

Let me add that the Nikon 12-24/4.0 does well! Build,

range, distortion, sharpness and contrast are fine.

 

The only real problems I have with it are it's size and the

fact that you do have to go really wide on DX in

comparison to FX. 12mm!! For some subjects it shows -

especially with people.

<p>I love both my Sigma 10-20 and my Nikon 10.5 full frame fisheye.</p>

<p>when i went to havana, cuba, i used the tokina 12-24 as a walkaround lens. it's really nice and contrasty stopped down to 5.6-8. it would have been very limiting to use the 11-16.</p>

<p>in the OP's case, having nothing wider than 50, apart from the mammoth, non-filter-friendly 14-24 would indeed be an issue, especially with a DX camera like the d90, since the crop factor makes that a 75mm equivalent. so i would strongly recommend getting an UWA which goes to 24mm as well as possibly another zoom. the 70-200 isn't especially travel friendly. my tokina 12-24 + the tamron 28-75/2.8 on DX is a nice travel kit, giving you an 18-108.5mm equiv. range with two excellent lenses which arent too bulky.</p>

<p>btw, i find it hard to believe the 17-50 tamron "wasn't sharp enough." that is still the sharpest 2.8 zoom i have used at 2.8, including the 17-50 OS sigma and the 24-70 AF-S nikon.</p>