The DX scenic "problem" ?

You'd think I would have picked up on this, long ago, but I didn't. Maybe it's because I'm still in film, and

only think about digital, as the next step I will take some time in the future. However, it has smacked me in the

face, in the last few days.

 

I like to take scenic shots of landscapes. My 24mm f2.8 AIS is my "wide" lens and a 35mm f2 is my normal. I got a

28-105mm, recently, and it worked out very well too. Let's say I go to a Nikon DSLR. That 24mm is now a 36mm.

That's workable as a landscape lens, but it loses quite a bit of FoV. So, I need a 24mm equivalent for a DX

sensor type body. That puts it at about 16mm, if my math is right. That drops me right into the odd end of optics

where perspective can get weird and distortion is common. Of course, this is easily fixed with Photoshop, which I

can get for $300. Of course, the price is $500 for a third party lens in this range, and right up in the 4

figures for a Nikon. All of this, just to get back to a basic 24mm FoV. I think that lens was about $100.

 

Have I missed anything ?

A DX 16mm looks identical to a FX 24mm. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a great replacement for 16-24mm wide angles that we used to have on film/FX. The distortion is very well controlled and the perspective is the same as the 24mm you use now. You don't need photoshop just to correct a bit of distortion, paint shop pro can do it for much cheaper, their are even free tools that can do it.

 

Losing wide primes does suck though, i'll grant you that, my 20mm f2.8 used to be a favorite of mine for it's perspective, now, it's pretty much useless, a kit lens set at the same focal length pretty much gets the same shot. However, my 85mm f1.4 just got better with digital, i have more room to work, i don't have to worry about vignetting or corner CA and center sharpness even at f1.4 is pretty good ( i would rarely use it at f1.4 before because the corners looked a bit too soft)

Both the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 and the Tokina 12-24mm f4 are around $500. The former at about $550 and the latter at about $500. Ouch. How to they compare ? I'm asking because the 12-24mm would fit with my next AF lens, which is 28-105mm. Less of a gap in focal length.

John,

 

"That drops me right into the odd end of optics where perspective can get weird and distortion is common."

 

No, that only happens because 16 mm gives such a wide angle of view on full frame. A 16 mm lens on DX has about

the same angle of view as 24 mm on full frame and a lens of 16 mm properly designed for DX should have no more

distortion than a 24 mm one designed for full frame.

Apart from the extra stop of light, the 11-16 is sharper in the center and corners and has less vignetting then

the 12-24. The distortion is also better then the 12-24 (easier to correct is it's critical). If it was up to

me, i would beg on the streets for the extra $50, but then again, i don't care about the long end of either of

these lens', i shoot them at their widest settings, usually wide open, so f2.8 is important to me, might not be

to you if you're stopping down for landscapes.

 

If you aren't a pixel peeping kinda gut, both will provide you with great results, both are well built and offer

some things that the other lens' doesn't have. You might mind the gap between 16 and 28, you might not, not

every hole in a lens' lineup needs to be filled... The three lens' i use are an 11-16, a 50mm f1.8 and an AI-S

85mm f1.4. (essentially 3 primes since the 11-16 isn't much of a zoom). If i want to travel a bit lighter, i but

the 50 and the 85 away and use a tokina 50-135 f2.8.

 

I mentioned the 11-16 because you said you were concerned about distortion, if you're willing to fix the

distortion manually, their are a couple of other options when it comes to wide angle lens' for DX:

 

Nikkor 12-24mm f4 (over $900)

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ($550 usually out of stock)

Tokina 12-24 f4 ($500 performs as good as the Nikkor for 1/2 price)

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 ($450 widest lens' but it does have slow variable aperture)

Tamron 11-18 f4.5-5.6 ($450 nothing special, no advantage over any of the competitors)

 

There also exists a Sigma 12-24 f4-5.6 which is a full frame lens', not DX, so it would fit your film system as

well. It performs very well on a DX system and nicely on a FX/film system (corners are a bit soft, but nothing

bad) It's a $600 lens but it allows for more versatility...

While I never had the chance to play with the nikon 12-24 or tokina 11-16, I am quite pleased with the tokina's 12-24. I find it quite sharp, even in the corners, and the extra reach to 24mm does come in handy. I believe both tokina's share similar lens design. The extra stop of the 2.8 would be useful at times, but I figure with a dslr, I'm no longer stuck mid-roll with slow film when I'm losing my light. My nikkor 24mm was my favorite tourist and walk-around lens on my film bodies. I would have preferred a prime, but it's nonexistent right here right now.

Nikon D3 and use the lenses you have. $5000

 

Wait for a cheaper full frame. Rumor is one is coming and they need to compete with Canon 5D.

 

16/85 Nikkor

 

18/70 Nikkor

 

14mm Tamron

 

I like my 12/24 Nikkor

 

I don`t find the old primes better than the new zooms except for the higher speed and smaller size. You may find chromatic aberation appears when used on digital.

 

Unless you are going to put the files thru a photoeditor or are a photojournalist on a time budget, stay with film. Maybe buy a scanner.

I have the Nikkor 12-24 f4 (~$900). It's cruddy wide open, but a couple of stops down and it shines. I hear the Sigma 10-something is just as good. A little correction and you have a great shot.

The Sigma 10-20mm looks wonderful at 16mm. If a much better IQ is needed, especially for landscape, I almost think you should be thinking of an FX camera (D3, or other potential Nikon release) , and use the lens you have now.

I love my Nikon 12-24. It's amazingly sharp and has given me some of my largest JPG files out of camera to date.

One of the drawbacks of the DX sensor. I also own the 24mm AIS and the 28-105 Nikon (nice lens for the price). However the landscape thing is my main interest so I purchased the 12-24mm Tokina. I think the lens is a great purchase. I just try and control the converging lines as best I can. Keeping the lens horizontal to the subject helps. As soon as you aim up a little it gets much worse. Photoshop manipulation also is very helpful. You have a few options which are to shoot film, buy a full frame digital or shoot the DX format. I can get along very well with my D200 and the tokina.

Full frame bodies are the best solution for landscape photography. If your lenses are manual focus and you are a patient photographer then you have two options beyond the D3.

 

 

1. You can use your lenses with cheap adapters on Canon full frame cameras like the 5D. You must use them in stopped-down metering mode. There are a few good full frame Canon bodies available in the used marketplace including the 5D, 1Ds, and 1DsII. All are cheaper than the D3.

 

 

2. I went the route of a Kodak SLRn. Phenomenal image quality which is superior to my D2X. It is an antique by DSLR standards and for this reason extreme patience is required. I shot 6x6 for several years and shooting with the SLRn requires similar patience. It is a Nikon mount camera with the same amount of lens compatibility as the D3. While it is autofocus it obviously is no where near new Nikons. It is no longer supported by Kodak but having been built as a professional body it should last well. These are regularly available in the used marketplace for under $1300 USD and I got mine for under $1000 USD. My primary use for this camera is with my Nikon 14mm f2.8 but I have used it with my Nikon 200/2 AI for soccer, of all things!

 

 

If you go the route of a 10 or 12mm to XX zoom make sure you get a full frame compatible one, like the Sigma 12-24. This way you can use it on your film camera or future full frame DSLR.

 

 

The 16mm lens you are thinking of is likely the Nikon AF or AIS 16mm f2.8 Fisheye which does have a lot of intended distortion. A 16mm lens or superwide zoom made for crop bodies is not a fisheye.

Have you seen <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-index.htm">this</a>, John?

Yeah. After I started the thread. Perhaps, when I finally get a DSLR, I'll pick up one of the Tokinas on the used market. I know they don't hold their resale value, like Nikon glass, so I might get a good deal in a year or two.

Start with an ultra-wide zoom wider than you need. The Tokina 12-24/4 is a good 'un, even if you never use it at 12mm. Tried one in a local shop and was surprised at how good it was. By 14-16mm the distortion is negligible, and never was really bad even at 12mm. Surprisingly good flare resistance too. I tested it with strong backlighting from the sun, no problems with ghosting or veiling flare. A little CA, nothing that can't be easily corrected.

Malcolm Farrow wrote "while the lack of DofF scales on modern lenses is an inconvenient, retrograde step"

 

 

The DOF at the (DX 12-24mm) 12mm end at f16 and 500 feet is 1.5ft to infinity....At the 24mm end it is 6 ft to infinity. Not much use for a DOF scale on this lens.

One thing about the Tokina 12-24 and that it is a DX lens. So if your waiting for a full frame camera then this is probably not the right lens to buy. I use it on my D200 and think the lens is a fantastic bargain at $500.00. Actually you could just use your 24mm AIS at that time. Some people say that it lacks sharpness on the digital body and I agree with that because I have one and used it for a while until I bought the Tokina. The lens does hold it's value. It's very popular.

At $500, the lens would be the most expensive thing for Photography I have ever purchased. Well, the F4 was $299 via eBay, but had to be sent to Nikon to make it like the seller SAID it was. The NEW total was almost $500.THat should key you in on my budget range.

 

I'm not an ultra-wide lens user, so the 11-16mm would be pretty much a 16mm lens, for $550. The 12-24mm would probably have more uses for me. Yeah, I lose the f2.8 and narrow DoF, but I mostly use the 24mm I have for shots in the middle of the f stop range.

 

I need to get a great deal on a DSLR before this lens comes into play. Maybe when the D300 is surpassed like the D200 is now, I will be able to get one. I have too many MF lenses to look at the D40 and cousins at this point.

If your needs can be fulfilled by 27 mm equivalent, Nikkor 18-55 DX VR is aquite cheap and a fairly good lens in my opinion, great contract and nice results if one uses within its limitations.

Contrast, that is, sorry!

A 27mm is a bit close the the 35mm I have.

Switching over to digital has a large cost initially for the body and some lenses and misc items like flash cards and batteries etc.. In theory you earn it all back on film costs and processing but after 2 years I just keep spending and I still shoot film anyway.

Hellow John,

 

I think, we should wait for till the full frame DSLRs become common, widely availabe in resonable price.

 

Till than we should enjoy the films.

 

Afterall, crop frame cesors are too expansive compared to there worth and Full frame are very high on prices, I will enjoy my $300 CRT TV till the $1500 Flat LCD TV comes down in prices

 

All the electronic items sold very high on prices till those are newly introduced, and when become common and demanding, price down like twin tower crash.....

A 16mm DX does NOT look like a 24mm "FX".

 

Although the FoV is identical, the depth of field is dramatically different. All digital DX wide angle images look flat.

"A 27mm is a bit close the the 35mm I have."

 

Dear John, that 35 mm will become 50 mm on your new D SLR!