mark_stephan2 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>My widest lens is a non D 20 f2.8 and a Tokina 20-35 f2.8. I'd like to get something wider and I'm considering one of these Tokina lenses and would like to read your opinions.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_bouknight1 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>Mark, I would be curious of your opinion of your 20 Nikkor vs the Tokina zoom at 20mm. I have used several lenses in the 20mm range. All have been capable of generating a decent image, but none seem to be outstanding on a D800.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bessler_sr Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>Have you tried the Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>Agreed, the 14-24mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor is the only lens that's really going to cut it with a D800 at focal lengths below 24mm. Provided size, weight, cost, poor lens shading and the lack of a filter are no object.</p> <p>My experience with the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 ATX is that it's pretty awful wide open, but only needs to be stopped down to f/3.5 to return acceptable IQ. The contrast is still fairly low at all apertures, and flare is an issue. Still it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm Nikkor and offers (probably) the most used range of wideangle focal lengths. The 20mm f/2.8 prime Nikkor - either AF or MF version - is a better lens. If you want something shorter and cheaper it's worth looking at the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. No AF, but there's so much DoF it hardly needs accurate focus.</p> <p>I don't know about the more modern Tokinas, since the 14-24mm Nikkor does most of what I want from a wideangle, and the Tamron 28-75mm SP f/2.8 takes over at the longer end.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_stephan2 Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>Robert, the 20-35 is a decent lens on my D700 and so is the 20 as long as I stop it down to f4 - f5.6. At those apertures both are very sharp. On the D800 both lenses seem less sharp to my eyes. That's why I want to upgrade to something better suited to digital. I'd love to get the 14-24 but as an enthusiast I can't afford it. If I made a living with my photography I'd own the 14-24. I'm leaning towards the 17-35 because it's a cheaper option but the 16-28 may be the better lens. Watching YouTube videos the 16-28 rates highly for both Canon and Nikon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pge Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>I have the older Sigma 12-24, not the greatest lens but lots of fun. I find that I do not use wide very often so I wanted to stay budget aware. The Sigma did the trick. It is seriously wide.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 <p>I have and use constantly the Tokina 16-28 2.8. I love this lens. I shoot bar and bat mitzvahs -- about 40 a year -- and this lens is my go-to for tight, close-in shots of dancing as well as ultra-wide images of large groups or even room shots. I always use it with flash, so it's always at f/5.6 or greater, but performance is superb and it produces tack-sharp prints. I used it's DX brother, the 11-16, when I used D7000s, and had similar experiences. I am now shooting this lens on a D610. The price difference vs. the 14-24 is significant and performance is pro-level.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_stig Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 From a review i saw of it showing it at 28 22 and 16mm and its clear the lens was produced to be sharpest at 16 and gets less so on its way till it gets to 28mm. I was ready to pull the plug but after seeing that revIew For now I will pass since i need it to be sharper from 20-28. Its not a bad thing but for my needs, i dont shoot wide so often. Shooting people at anything wider than 24mm distorts and pulls them so Ill just stay with my tamron 17-35 for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_parra Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 <p>I traded my beloved Nikon 14-24mm for the 16-28mm... yes, the tokina is that good, even on my D800. insane optics at 1/2 the price plus 14mm was always too wide for my taste...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I've used both the Tokinas on a D800 and owned the 17-35 before I got out of DSLRs. They're both fantastic. The 17-35 ended up being my choice because it's nearly as good, smaller and cheaper, and I didn't have a need for f/2.8 in an ultrawide, but if you do want f/2.8 the 16-28 gave me nothing to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_p Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 <p>I currently use the Tokina 17-35/F4 on my old 14mp Kodak. It's excellent as far as sharpness & edges remain straight with little to no distortion. The rear element of the lens is actually slightly concave.</p> <p>The only negative comment that I have found is the lens' focusing scale is sometimes incorrect @ 17mm. KR's review is pretty much, spot on. (Avoid looking at the scale and all is well.) The consumer Nikon 18-35 in comparison, has a lot of mustache distortion.</p> <p>At half the cost of a used Nikon 17-35/2.8 with little other choices, it's almost a "no brainer". The few sample pix of the lens on a higher MP body fare favorably, though most were taken less than wide open.</p> <p>Hope this helps.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now