Advice on wide zoom for a D7200

I'm finally getting a slightly used D7200 to replace my D7000 and also decided to have a go with a wide zoom - something wider than the 18-xxx kit zooms. I've decided to buy used and would appreciate some advice from people who've used some of the contenders on my short list.

 

This lens is mainly for landscape and weight is an issue since I'll be carrying the equipment along with hiking kit. I don't necessarily need anything that will exploit all the 24 mp of the camera - one more appropriate for, say, 10-15 mp would probably do. I think that I'd prefer a lens that went out to 24 or 28 mm and started at 12mm rather than one starting at 10mm and finishing at 20mm.

 

Not sure about VR. Do you really need it outdoors on a wide lens? Mind you as I've got older I find it less easy to hold the camera really still!

 

Anyway so far I've come up with:-

 

Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 460g about £290

Not much wrong with this one I think, though more expensive than the others.

 

Nikon 12-24 f/4 460g about £200

This is a very old design. Is it optically up to the job? If so it's a contender. Probably the best mechanically.

 

Nikon 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 230g- !!! about £170

Has VR which on the D7200 you can't turn off. I did know in advance of buying the camera!

Reports seem mixed, some say it's good, others say only good for the price. Shame it doesn't go a bit longer.

Has a plastic mount which I'm happy with on a zoom at £70, less so on one at this price. Still I love the low weight.

 

Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 530g about £220

Same as above about the zoom range. 100g more than the Nikon offerings. Reports seem a bit mixed and maybe it suffers from the variability that plagued the older slower version.

 

Tokina 12-28 f/4 540g about £175-£200

This was a hot favourite despite the weight until I saw the review on lenstip which pointed out that Tokina still have a problem with flare. Just how bad is this? Has anybody got one of these?

 

Tokina 12-24 f/4 540g Mk1 £150 Mk2 £200

On the Mk2, flare seems better than the 12-28 above. I'd be inclined to go for the Nikon 12-24 at 100g less and better flare resistance.

Is the lower price of the newer 12-28 on mpb.com here in the UK telling me anything?

 

Any thoughts and other suggestions appreciated.

 

The postman has just delivered my Black Friday 1300 clicks as new D7100 so it's time to open the box!

I'll add another one to the list:

 

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD; 439g. I own it (VR was the main attraction) and it is optically OK (at or above the level of the Nikon 10-24). Better optical quality is provided by either version of the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the Tokina 11-20/2.8, especially in the corners. Rather limited range and hefty weight (550g and 560g) are the flipsides of either lens. I owned the first version of the 11-16 and now have the 11-20; the 11-16 was sharper in the corners at the wider settings, the 11-20 is sharper at the longer settings; both do quite a bit better in that regard than the Tamron 10-24 mentioned before.

 

Nikon 12-24 f/4 ... Is it optically up to the job?

Nope; OK on 12MP, not recommended for 24MP bodies.

 

Tokina 12-24 f/4

Back in the days, I compared it vs the Nikon 12-24 - the main difference (aside from cost) was that the Tokina was much more prone to flare. Wouldn't recommend either for the D7200.

I'll add another one to the list:

 

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD; 439g. I own it (VR was the main attraction) and it is optically OK (at or above the level of the Nikon 10-24). Better optical quality is provided by either version of the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the Tokina 11-20/2.8, especially in the corners. Rather limited range and hefty weight (550g and 560g) are the flipsides of either lens. I owned the first version of the 11-16 and now have the 11-20; the 11-16 was sharper in the corners at the wider settings, the 11-20 is sharper at the longer settings; both do quite a bit better in that regard than the Tamron 10-24 mentioned before.

 

Thanks for that Dieter. I had read your earlier post but discounted the Tamron because it looked as if the price looked too high used. I now find that the advert. was a rogue and it seems I can buy one for around the same price as the Nikon 10-24, or a little less. Perhaps I'll go with the Tamron as it's about the same weight as the Nikon and the VC is a bonus.The idea is that I can switch to a 35mm f/1.8 DX after 24mm and then pick up on a 55-200 zoom. Maybe even leave the 35 mm at home sometimes.

 

D7200 seems great. Many small tweaks that make it much nicer to use than the D7000 and the low light high ISO JPEGs are pretty impressive. I know you hate the D7xxx v. the D200/300/500 but for my purposes the size and weight really matter!

I'm finally getting a slightly used D7200 to replace my D7000

The postman has just delivered my Black Friday 1300 clicks as new D7100

Err, so what have you got? I'm guessing the D7200, but thought I'd check.

 

I had the first version of the Sigma 10-20mm. If you want a UWA with pretty minimal distortion it's pretty good.

Err, so what have you got? I'm guessing the D7200, but thought I'd check.

 

I had the first version of the Sigma 10-20mm. If you want a UWA with pretty minimal distortion it's pretty good.

Sorry my typo. it's a D7200. I passed on the D7100 and the D7500 is no better with non-CPU lenses than my D40, so the D7200 is kind of last of it's kind and hopefully My Last Camera as I'm now almost 72!

My Last Camera as I'm now almost 72!

I was standing in the cold the other day at the local nature reserve next to a chap of 101 with a Z7+ FTZ and 300PF.

 

So, you've got maybe 30 years without a new camera...Oh the sadness....:(

 

He found the Z7's IBIS very handy for his slightly shaky hands ... and the lightweight 300mm PF was a bonus too...:D

The idea is that I can switch to a 35mm f/1.8 DX after 24mm and then pick up on a 55-200 zoom. Maybe even leave the 35 mm at home sometimes.

I tried the idea of not having a mid-range zoom for a while - didn't quite work out in the end. With just a wide-angle and a tele-zoom, there was almost always the wrong lens on the camera for the situation at hand; requires a second camera body to work.

 

know you hate the D7xxx v. the D200/300/500

Hate is a strong word - I dislike them and to me they clearly have an inferior UI.

I've had the 10-20mm Nikon for a bit over a year now.

 

When I bought it, I actually didn't have a "modern" DX camera. I bought it specifically for FX use, where it works at 14mm and longer. I actually have been pleased with it in that application-it's nowhere near as good as my 14-24mm f/2.8, but it also not a boat anchor and can use filters.

 

Since buying a "modern" DX camera a few weeks ago(D500) I've been using it a fair bit, and while it's not the best lens I've ever used(the 14-24 is still better on the D500, but is also a whole lot of lens to tote around and not be an ultrawide) it's passable. The lens is unapologetically cheap and the distortion is bad, but with a click in Lightroom or even in camera that goes away. With VR, it's also frightening how slow I can handhold it.

 

A few FX pictures from that lens-these were done with a D600, which also doesn't allow you to turn off VR. Using it on DX is a bit different as a 24mp D7200 sensor, or even 20mp D500 sensor, will tax it a bit more, but is also only using the center highest resolution part of the lens.

 

 

 

 

Of your list, the only one that I've owned is the 12-24 f/4. It's a tank of a lens-in fact I'll go out on a lens and say it's the only pro-quality Nikon DX lens I've ever handled. With that said, others are correct that it leaves a bit to be desired on a higher resolution sensor. I can see its deficiencies on a D2x or D300, much less on a 20/24mp sensor. I use it pretty heavily when I pull out one of my D1 series cameras, where it's both optically a great match and also the same build quality. I haven't had it off my D1 in 6 months-I should try it on the D500, but haven't yet.

Better optical quality is provided by either version of the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the Tokina 11-20/2.8, especially in the corners.

I can second that about the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8.

 

If your budget will stretch to it, it's well worth considering. Build quality is terrific too. I'd put it up against any of those Nikkors in a game of conkers!

Richard, The Nikon 12-24 mm lens that came out in 2003 has come down in price in the used market. It’s still sold new for over $1000 but you can find one in good condition for under $400 from KEH in the US. Auction is usually less. If you can find a good copy for a good price I would recommend the Nikon 12-24 f4. The comments regarding more current Tamron and Tokina lenses would make me consider those two brands very seriously. I have always admired the build quality of Tokina glass when comparing it to Nikon. The bench tested image quality of all ultra wide angle zoom DX lenses is OK and that is probably all but clinically speaking in the real world you can take fantastic wide angle images with the 12-24 or its ilk that are as sharp you will need. I gave my 12-24 to my sister who is a painter and a dedicated DX shooter. I shoot DX in telephoto and close ups all the time with a D500 and with the slower D7200. Both have outstanding image quality. Especially the D7200. Don’t ever stop shooting. I wish all of us to be happily shooting late model Nikon stuff when we are 101. Mike, what an honor to shoot with someone that age. Good hunting.

I can second that about the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8.

 

If your budget will stretch to it, it's well worth considering. Build quality is terrific too. I'd put it up against any of those Nikkors in a game of conkers!

Yes I'm sure that this lens is optically one of the best, however in my case the price and weight count against it. Also since this is mainly for outdoor use on a camera with good high ISO performance I don't really need the f/2.8 stop. Top contender at the moment is probably the Nikon 10-20 plastic-fantastic which I'm confident would lose the conkers contest at the first swipe.

 

For the benefit of non-Brits:-

Conkers:- Strange game in which a nut from the horse chestnut tree is suspended from a string after boring a hole through it. Taking it in turns, contestants attempt to destroy their opponent's conker by hitting it with their own. Performance enhancements include pickling in vinegar and oven baking the nut, though benefits from this treatment are largely unproven.

Richard, The Nikon 12-24 mm lens that came out in 2003 has come down in price in the used market. It’s still sold new for over $1000 but you can find one in good condition for under $400 from KEH in the US. Auction is usually less. If you can find a good copy for a good price I would recommend the Nikon 12-24 f4. The comments regarding more current Tamron and Tokina lenses would make me consider those two brands very seriously. I have always admired the build quality of Tokina glass when comparing it to Nikon. The bench tested image quality of all ultra wide angle zoom DX lenses is OK and that is probably all but clinically speaking in the real world you can take fantastic wide angle images with the 12-24 or its ilk that are as sharp you will need. I gave my 12-24 to my sister who is a painter and a dedicated DX shooter. I shoot DX in telephoto and close ups all the time with a D500 and with the slower D7200. Both have outstanding image quality. Especially the D7200. Don’t ever stop shooting. I wish all of us to be happily shooting late model Nikon stuff when we are 101. Mike, what an honor to shoot with someone that age. Good hunting.

Thanks for the information. A actually found a review of the Nikon 12-24 on this site (it used to be photozone.de)

using a D7000 and it's actually not that bad, though the Nikon 10-24 is probably better. At the moment, however, I probably favour the Nikon 10-20.

I've had the 10-20mm Nikon for a bit over a year now.

 

When I bought it, I actually didn't have a "modern" DX camera. I bought it specifically for FX use, where it works at 14mm and longer. I actually have been pleased with it in that application-it's nowhere near as good as my 14-24mm f/2.8, but it also not a boat anchor and can use filters.

 

Since buying a "modern" DX camera a few weeks ago(D500) I've been using it a fair bit, and while it's not the best lens I've ever used(the 14-24 is still better on the D500, but is also a whole lot of lens to tote around and not be an ultrawide) it's passable. The lens is unapologetically cheap and the distortion is bad, but with a click in Lightroom or even in camera that goes away. With VR, it's also frightening how slow I can handhold it.

 

A few FX pictures from that lens-these were done with a D600, which also doesn't allow you to turn off VR. Using it on DX is a bit different as a 24mp D7200 sensor, or even 20mp D500 sensor, will tax it a bit more, but is also only using the center highest resolution part of the lens.

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1319653[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1319655[/ATTACH]

 

 

Of your list, the only one that I've owned is the 12-24 f/4. It's a tank of a lens-in fact I'll go out on a lens and say it's the only pro-quality Nikon DX lens I've ever handled. With that said, others are correct that it leaves a bit to be desired on a higher resolution sensor. I can see its deficiencies on a D2x or D300, much less on a 20/24mp sensor. I use it pretty heavily when I pull out one of my D1 series cameras, where it's both optically a great match and also the same build quality. I haven't had it off my D1 in 6 months-I should try it on the D500, but haven't yet.

Thanks Ben. I just found a rather helpful review of this lens here The guy seems pretty impressed and from what I can gather it was OK on a tripod with VR on which surprised me rather. Presumably on your D600 you can switch to manual focus using the lever near the lens mount even though you can't turn off VR?

Presumably on your D600 you can switch to manual focus using the lever near the lens mount even though you can't turn off VR?

 

Yes, I can.

 

I had to update the firmware on both my D600 and D800 to get the lens to focus at all-auto or manual-but once updated both modes work fine.

 

It's weirdly silent. The "SWM" can still make a fair bit of mechanical noise moving the lens around. The "STM" is basically only audible if you're in a quiet room and hold the camera up to your ear.

Well, I've finally ordered the Nikon 10-20 AFP VR. In the UK these sell new for £180-£215 but I've found an 'open box' one on offer for £159. It was really between the Nikon 10-20 and the Tamron 10-24 VC which here is well over £300 used, though I did find one at £299. I suspect the optical quality of the two is similar, so it was really a case of the extra zoom range as against weight and price.

Many thanks to all for the help.

Richard, sounds like a great choice.

Merry Christmas