Tokina 12-24 f/4 ATX Pro, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or Nikon 12-24 f/4 AF-S DX ?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by orcama60, Dec 22, 2010.

  1. Thanks is advance to everyone. Trying to decide which of these lenses would be the best to shoot indoors ( dressing room / reception / ceremony group shots at a wedding ) ? Whoever have experience using any on those lenses for this kind of pictures, could you please give me your opinion and if it is possible, can you post some pics please ? Have a D300 by the way. Have you made some comparison between those lenses ?
    Best regards, by the way, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2011 to all of you.
    Maurice.
     
  2. indoor lens would be the 11-16mm 2.8.
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    How about Nikon's 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX? In that range, each extra mm makes a difference, and it also means you don't need to use the extreme end of the lens as often and should get better results.
     
  4. Thank so much Dave. Have you shot with one of them ? Any suggestion about how to use it with or without the SB-800 ?
     
  5. Thanks Shun, but I would like to have the capability to use a wide aperture without flash for some pics at the wedding and f/3.5 is not the recommended one for a low light conditions inside a room, nevertheless, 10-24 is much wider than 11-16 and more range at the end zoom but still not that fast as a f/2.8 or f/4. Have you use any of the lens posted for me ?
     
  6. I am reading a book named Digital Wedding Photography by Glen Johnson that by the way, it is a great one and he uses, almost always, 17mm for most of his pictures, but I used before the Tokina 11-16 and did liked how wide it was but never used it that much 'cause I returned it after 3 days. I am tempted to buy it again, but before I make my decision, I must know how the other two are in comparison with this one. 12-24 sounds a great range, more than 11-16 but don't know if the Tokina version is up to the Nikon, quality talking.
     
  7. obviously the faster lens would be better for indoor shots without flash, but overall, i think the 11-16's range is just too limiting. having shot extensively with the tokina 12-24, i can tell you that the long end gets used as much or more than the wide end, except for landscape pics. if i'm shooting people with that, i prefer to stop down to 5.6-f/8, so i use flash for indoor shots.
    i haven't been too impressed by the 11-16's wide open performance, and in general, you give up a lot of range just to gain 1mm, and if you're stopping down anyway, the point becomes kind of moot.
    have you shot with an ultrawide before? they can be kind of tricky, as shooting close-up at wider focal lengths can result in a lot of distortion, especially faces. i'm not sure i would experiment at a wedding.
    anyway, here's a couple pics...
    00XtsL-313839584.jpg
     
  8. and one at 12mm. btw, the tokina 12-24 is just as good as the nikon, and the 11-16 is even better.
    00XtsN-313841584.jpg
     
  9. one more, at 19mm...
    00XtsP-313843584.jpg
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    but I would like to have the capability to use a wide aperture without flash for some pics at the wedding and f/3.5 is not the recommended one for a low light conditions inside a room, nevertheless, 10-24 is much wider than 11-16 and more range at the end zoom but still not that fast as a f/2.8 or f/4. Have you use any of the lens posted for me ?​
    Maurice, you yourself are considering the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 and Nikon 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX, but somehow a 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not fast enough? That lens is f3.5 on its wide end and is therefore a little faster than those 12-24mm/f4 you are considering. It is a slightly slower f4.5 on it long end, but presumably you have other faster options at 24mm.
    I have used all of the Nikon lenses mentioned in this thread.
     
  11. you don't get very good bokeh with an ultrawide, so the benefits of shooting at 2.8 are debatable--for subject isolation, a 30/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 or 70-200/2.8 would be better. OTOH, if you stop down to f/6.3-f/8 with an UWA, pretty much everything is in focus always, so i just use flash in those situations. i'm sure the 11-16 could possibly be useful in that situation, but practice makes perfect with specialty lenses like that.
    maurice, are you using two bodies? or just the d300? if so, i'd maybe stick to a 17-xx 2.8 unless you want to be changing lenses very frequently.
     
  12. You are right Shun, I missed that, f/3.5 is faster than f/4.
    Eric, I almost do not have experience with ultra-wide, but of course if I buy any of those lenses, I will have enough time to practice with them before the wedding. As I said before, I had the 11-16 for 3 days and it does not feel like having a lot of range but it is optically talking, very sharp and reliable in low light conditions and this is what I am considering. Just wanted to know if the other two, for low light ( no flash ) are up to this lens, the Tokina 11-16. I do like the range of 12-24 / 10-24 but they are f/4, so how good they are in low light ?
    According to some reviews, the Tokina 12-24 is not as sharp as the Nikon but better build quality than the Nikon. The only one that can compete with the Nikon in the quality arena, is the Tokina 11-16 and probably better than the Nikon in this regard and much better build quality.
     
  13. Eric, I will use two bodies. I do have a D300 and I probably rent another D300 for the wedding. I will have the 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II in one camera and the other, with the ultra-wide ( Tokina 11-16, 12-24 or Nikon 12-24 ). I will also have in my bag, the Nikon 16-85, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8 and two speedlights : SB-800 and will rent or probably buy, the SB-900.
     
  14. Changing lenses ? Yes, I will probably change from the ultra-wide to the medium zoom Nikon 16-85 VR with flash for some of the pictures. Have not consider very deep the need of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 yet. I am still doubtful about it. I think if I need some pictures to be taken within 17-55, I can use my 16-85 with flash and get away with it, so basically I am concentrating in a zoom ( 70-200 ) and the ultra-wide. What do you think ?
     
  15. The 16-85 is f/3.5 at 16mm and f/4 at 24mm - so you gain nothing or very little in terms of shutter speed with either the 10-24/3.5-4.5 or the 12-24/4 in the range were the lenses overlap with your 16-85; you are gaining the advantage of a wider range that might mean less lens changes. The 11-16 has the narrower range but a full stop on the f/4 zooms and a bit less on the 10-24. It seems to come down to whether you want the overlap or not? You can basically consider the 11-16 as a prime with a little wiggle room - is that sufficient for what you want to do?

    I own both the 11-16/2.8 and the Nikon 12-24/4; I wanted to get rid of the latter when I purchased the former but I find it a too useful range when I am just taking one wide-angle lens and don't expect the need for the f/2.8 (which I purchased specifically for indoor use and to match up with the 17-55). The 11-16 is sharper but seems to hunt a bit more for focus than the 12-24 on my D300.
    If you have to decide between the 10-24 and the two 12-24; then IMO there are two things to consider. If on a budget, get the Tokina 12-24 - you aren't giving up much and some say it's even at par with the Nikon 12-24. If cost isn't a factor - then the 10-24. It's optically a tad above the Nikon 12-24, especially in the corners, and the variable aperture isn't a big deal. Plus, it is the widest of the bunch.
    That means that the decision is either between the two Tokinas if cost is a factor or between the 11-16 and the 10-24 if it isn't.
     
  16. Maurice, I recommended the 11-16mm 2.8 because it is a constant f2.8 lens, which is very handy when shooting in low light. Haven't shot with one personally, but most all the reviews I've read of the lens say it is very sharp at all focal lengths. I have the Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5, and while I do like the focal range a lot, the quality in the corners isn't what it could be (Tokina 12-24mm f4 is sharper in the corners than this lens, as is the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6). You can use flash with these lenses, make sure to use the diffusion cover over the flash to expand the light coverage when shooting at 10-12mm.
    Here is a photo I took with my Nikon 10.5mm f2.8 DX Fisheye lens and the Nikon SB-800 flash, with the diffuser dome installed. Amazing that the diffuser dome (that was included with the SB-800) covered the entire frame!
    00Xtta-313863584.jpg
     
  17. Can't say for the Nikon, but while the 12-24mm is a great lens, the 11-16mm kicks butt. Also the 12-24mm has a lot more CA...
     
  18. obviously the faster lens would be better for indoor shots without flash, but overall, i think the 11-16's range is just too limiting. having shot extensively with the tokina 12-24, i can tell you that the long end gets used as much or more than the wide end, except for landscape pics...​
    +1,
    I also use the 12-24 tokina and I would have upgraded to their 2.8 if the range wasn't so limiting. 16mm at the long end isn't very useful for people/event shooting. Even if you have the 70-200 on the second body, the 17-70mm is too huge a gap for people / event. It's a shame that there's no 17-35mm f2.8 FX equivalent in the DX line up...
     
  19. I have the 11-16 and love it. I chose it over the Tamron (which sucked), Sigma (which were pretty good) and Tokina 12-24 options because I wanted to be able to shoot at f5.6 or f4 and be in the sweet spot of the lens instead of wide open. i use it for non-people photos almost exclusively. I don't regret it, but I'd NEVER have bought it for people and event shooting. I'd have bought the 12-24 and just shot with a flash or higher ISO. 16 is too wide for almost anything I'd shoot in such cases.
    I'd get either the Nikon or Tokina 12-24 f4 lenses.
     
  20. Just wanted to know if the other two, for low light ( no flash ) are up to this lens, the Tokina 11-16. I do like the range of 12-24 / 10-24 but they are f/4, so how good they are in low light ? According to some reviews, the Tokina 12-24 is not as sharp as the Nikon but better build quality than the Nikon.
    f/4 is pretty slow for low light. even with higher ISOs, you get a dimmer VF. that's not how you want to shoot an UWA, optimally--unless you're on a tripod and can use a slower shutter. i prefer the 35/1.8 or 30/1.4 for this application. as far as sharpness, it's basically a tie between the tokina and nikon 12-24's, depending on focal length and sample variation. Tokina definitely has better BQ. i've had the 12-24 for four years and never regretted not getting the nikon. put it this way: at 6.3-f/8, the lens is just so contrasty, you don't really feel like you're missing much, if anything.
    I will have the 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II in one camera and the other, with the ultra-wide ( Tokina 11-16, 12-24 or Nikon 12-24 ).
    ok, good to know.
    but idk maurice, you're kind of stuck on this 'i'll shoot the 11-16@2.8' idea, which i'm saying isn't all that practical. for one thing, none of the UWA DX zooms are optimized for shooting wide-open. the 11-16 goes to 2.8, but it's not optimized for 2.8--if you understand what i'm saying--unlike the 17-XX 2.8 DX zooms.
    not saying you can't shoot wide open with the 11-16 if you want,but that lens will be better stopped down, although limited range is more of a concern IMO--which is why i would go 10-24 or 12-24 personally. not sure why you can't use flash for everything but the actual ceremony itself, anyway--is there some requirement you have to shoot available-light?
    also, if you stick the 11-16 on one d300 and the 70-200 on another, you'll have a huge gap between 17-69 on DX. i've shot events (not weddings) PJ-style with the 12-24 and 50-150 on DX, which is a far less extreme chasm than an effective 24mm-105mm black hole, which is what you'd have with those two lenses. but even then, i usually carry 17-50 or 28-75, plus a flash.
    which brings us to the next hurdle:
    I think if I need some pictures to be taken within 17-55, I can use my 16-85 with flash and get away with it, so basically I am concentrating in a zoom ( 70-200 ) and the ultra-wide. What do you think ?
    why 16-85? if you're going 2.8 with an UWA, why would you want to use a slow standard zoom? do you realistically think you'll use an UWA that much? especially one that only goes to 16mm? personally, i would much rather have 17-200@2.8 with a 55-70 gap than what you are proposing. also, if available light is so important, why wouldn't you want a standard zoom that does 2.8? doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but YMMV.
     
  21. I have the Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5, and while I do like the focal range a lot, the quality in the corners isn't what it could be (Tokina 12-24mm f4 is sharper in the corners than this lens, as is the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6).
    the 10-24. It's optically a tad above the Nikon 12-24, especially in the corners, and the variable aperture isn't a big deal. Plus, it is the widest of the bunch.​
    dieter, are you sure? everything i've heard about the 10-24 concurs with dave's findings. there was a lot of buzz around this lens when it first came out, but it cooled down considerably as apparently the sigma is better at 10mm. i wouldn't be surprised to learn that the tokina 12-24 has better corners here too. from what i read, nikon kind of cheaped out on the 10-24's optical formula. dont think that matters too much for most typical applications for this lens, i.e. stopped down. but if you're attempting to shoot wide open, it could be a factor.
     
  22. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, I have no experience with the 3rd-party options, but both the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX and 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX are a little weak on the wide end, especially in the corners. The 24mm end is much better.
    That is why I think for wide angles, FX has a clear advantage. That is also why I prefer the 10-24 over the 12-24 since it is easier to avoid the extreme wide end of the 10-24.
     
  23. hmm, with the tokina 12-24, it's more the distortion at 12mm than lack of corner performance you have to watch out for. there's no distortion at 15mm, and the lens is almost flawless from 18-24mm. nevertheless, i think the whole idea of getting an ultra wide-angle zoom to shoot people at 2.8 is not necessarily sound, unless you're talking about the 14-24 on FX.
     
  24. Eric, I had this thread in mind when I wrote the above: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TUnj
    Looking at photozone, the comparison becomes much more complicated and the hierarchy changes depending on the focal length and the aperture used. Overall the trend I described previously seems to hold but it is also easy to see that at certain apertures and focal lengths, the trends can be different. Also, tests usually only use one lens and hence can't take sample variation into account - which may or may not be significant. Not to mention that visual perception of real world photos can lead one to draw different conclusions than the ones glimpses from the shooting of test charts.
    Nikon 12-24: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/229-nikkor-af-s-12-24mm-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1
    Tokina 12-24: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/273-tokina-af-12-24mm-f4-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lens-test-report--review?start=1
    Nikon 10-24: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545?start=1
    Sigma 10-20/3.5: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1
    Just for kicks, compare those performances with the 14-24 on DX - which is much more even across the frame.
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1
    and which maintains that performance on FX
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1
    On a side note - this reminds me again that all lens tests and comparisons need to be taken with a grain of salt. And how many users have the option and the time to do their own comparisons before they settle on the one to purchase?
     
  25. I haven't tried any of this objectives but, after looking at photozone tests, I don't understand why people say that tokina 12-24mm f/4 is as good as the Nikon 12-24mm f/4.
    Tests seem to show that Nikon has less distortion in the wide end, less vignetting in the wide end, better resolution overall (only Tokina is slightly better at 12mm f/4 in the corners) and much less chromatic aberration.
     
  26. Eric, I am not planning to shoot everything at f/2.8 but some pictures ( with the intention of being creative ) I may take them at f/2.8. Now, the range between 12-24 is great so I do have a question now, how sharp is either the Tokina 12-24 / Nikon 12-24 at the wide end in case I need to shoot at that f/stop ?
     
  27. Yes Breogan, thank you for that. Photozone is given to the Nikon more advantage than the Tokina. Nikon is definitely a better lens but I posted the question to see if somebody have used the Tokina and what results they got with it.
    I am starting to think that for my camera, the better lens of all may be either the Nikon 12-24 or the Nikon 10-24 as Shun is pointing. For DX, 10-24 sounds more logical if I want to go wider.
     
  28. Hi Maurice,
    I have the Nikon 12-24 and love it. It's really useful for interiors, particularly kitchens. It takes a while to learn to use. Because it is so wide, people placed at the edges of the frame will look wierd (even worse in the corners). Also, if you use flash, you must bounce to get adequate coverage and the lens can block the flash and give you an odd half-round shadow on the bottom of the picture.
    If you are shooting a wedding, I would expect you would want your main lens to be the standard workhorse, an 18-55 on DX or 24-70 on FX. A 12-24 and 70-300 combo would leave a big and awkward gap in the middle.
    Attached is one example photo from my D90 + 12-24 taken last week in Japan. This is at the garden behind the New Otani hotel and illustrates how you can use this for near-far compositions. Even though this is at 12mm, it doesn't look ultra-wide.
    00Xu4s-313999584.JPG
     
  29. another example, this time at 24mm
    00Xu4v-314001584.JPG
     
  30. Here's what happens if you use direct (non-bounced flash). can you see the round shadow at the bottom of the picture? This is with fill flash and at 24mm. It would be much worse if flash was all your light.
    00Xu4y-314003584.JPG
     
  31. I love it for restaurant interiors.
    00Xu51-314005584.JPG
     
  32. I know very few lenses that perform at their peak when wide open. My choice would be the Tokina 11-16 stopped down and would expect that by f4 the lens will be performing better than a lens that starts at f4. Also, I can't recall what camera you intend mounting the lens to but assume it's a DX camera body.
     
  33. see how it makes the guy on the right look fat. he is one skinny dude and this is only at 19mm.
    00Xu58-314007584.JPG
     
  34. ...and you can even use an ultra-wide as a portrait lens. Note that perspective on this shot is heavily corrected using gimp (free image-editing software) so the buildings don't look like they are leaning over.
    00Xu5B-314009584.JPG
     
  35. I haven't read all of the responses here, so I apologize if someone else has already mentioned this, but what about the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5? That would give you a lot more flexibility in focal length range than the Tokina 11-16, and be only a half a stop slower. I used to own the Tokina and loved it, but I would think the limited range might be a problem for wedding work. Note that the Sigma I mentioned is a different lens than the variable aperture 10-20 f/4-5.6.
     
  36. Jonathan,
    The reviews I've read of the new sigma 10-20 f3.5 were a bit disappointing, check photozone.de especially.
    btw, although I don't shoot weddings (I am definitely an amateur photographer), I actually work in a church and interface with all the photographers who shoot weddings here.
    Not one of them... I repeat, not one... has ever used anything wider than 28mm FX/17mm DX for one single shot in a wedding in this building in the past five years. YMMV, of course, but if I was shooting a wedding, I'm not even sure I'd ever get the 11-16 out of the bag.
     
  37. I agree with Shun and Peter Hamm. I have the 12-24 Nikon and have used the 10-24. Optically it is a wash but the two millimeters makes a huge difference in creativity. Perhaps the 12-24 is build a bit better but not enough to matter. In the final analysis you are talking 2/3 stop between F2.8 and F3.5. Frankly not enough to matter. Even a full stop is a quibble. You mentioned your flash. Assuming you can use it (and you certainly can for posed shots in the dressing room) the apeture question is moot.
    I also agree with Peter in that I doubt you will use anything wider than 17-18 in the church. And that probably not that much. I think the same will apply to the dressing room. It would be a shame to look for opportunities to use a lens when you should be paying attention to the ceremony.
    If you have not done many weddings before I think it would be best to keep it as simple as possible. Two bodies and two lenses. (and two flashes by the way) You will be busy enough without having to consider swaping lenses frequently. Further. You will be in the way, under foot, annoying and otherwise unwelcome to people who are as preoccupied as two people can be who are not on the gallows. Changing lenses, flashes and doing nifty poses may be possible but just may not be. If I were you I would use two lenses on two bodies. One 17-50 AFS F/2.8 and one 70-200 AFS VR. (You have the 16-85 so I assume you will use that in place of the 17-50 in my kit.) That is it. If you want the other lens in your pocket just in case you get a chance to use it then any of the ones you mentioned will be just fine.
     
  38. how sharp is either the Tokina 12-24 / Nikon 12-24 at the wide end in case I need to shoot at that f/stop ?
    maurice, i haven't used the nikon. but in my experience with the tokina 12-24,it's actually pretty sharp wide open for people shots as long as the people are all on the same focal plane--for critical landscapes where you need corner-to-corner performance and good rendering of detail, i like to stop it down to f/8 or f/11. but i prefer not to shoot it wide open if i can help it, simply because it's so much better stopped down, so i use flash indoors. i'm not sure why you wouldn't want to use flash in that situation.
    however, the bigger issue is that if you shoot a group of people at 12mm, you need to not be too close or else distortion can happen on the edges, as Allan hints. So in general, with people shots, i like to shoot at about 18-24mm. after a lot of practice with the lens, i've found that shooting people at wide angles works well with one central image in the center of the frame. if you shoot really wide with people on the edges too close to you, they won't look normal. if you have one central image and people further away in the background, it comes out ok. not sure if i am explaining this correctly, but it took quite a lot of practice shooting an UWA before i really got the hang of it.
    if you go back a bit in the thread and look at the 12mm shot i posted, that's actually the proper distance (maybe about 8-10 feet) to avoid the distorted effect. stopping down a bit does help there. but just about any wide-angle lens will have some distortion at the widest focal length and open apertures, even a 17-xx 2.8 lens.
    i would weigh Peter's advice heavily, as UWA generally isn't part of a wedding photographer's kit. Honestly, i think you'd be better off with a 17-55 for what you're trying to do. i do like UWAs for shooting fairs and festivals, and also PJ-type stuff where background context is important, to give a sense of a "scene" happening, rather than just shooting an isolated subject. but it really does take a lot of practice to become competent with an UWA. in general, i think there's a temptation when you first get an UWA to always shoot at the widest focal length, when in actuality, that may not be optimal. even with the 12-24, 12mm is too wide much of the time, especially for people shots, and the same would be true of a 10-20 or 10-24, but more so.
    i'll post a few more shots, to give you some idea of what works with an UWA
    00XuB1-314085584.jpg
     
  39. I've short three weddings as an amateur, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 was there three times and I think in total made around 12 shots (out of 100s over those 3 days)....And I think only 3 of those were "nice to have". Wide angles take serious time to get used to, as a creative tool and it either fits your style or not. So, frankly, I really think you can do without for a wedding.
    As already stated, the 17-55 range is much more important. I've used a 18-70 glued to f/5.6 for a lot of the photos on those three weddings, but in hindsight, a f/2.8 17-55 would have been ideal.
     
  40. one more...
    00XuB4-314087584.jpg
     
  41. how sharp is either the Tokina 12-24 / Nikon 12-24 at the wide end in case I need to shoot at that f/stop​
    Depends on how picky you are. Really. It isn't as good as the 14-24. There will certainly be differences if you pixel peep or make huge enlargements. I have seen excellent images taken with either lens at normal viewing distances and can't see a difference. And since you will be hand holding your camera, differences will be blurred even more (pun intended) - there isn't much point in arguing over differences in test chart shots if you aren't locking your camera down on a sturdy tripod the same way it's done in the lab. Even using the 14-24 in this scenario likely won't make a difference in the final images. This appears to be yet another case of over-analyzing - analysis paralysis.
     
  42. One 17-50 AFS F/2.8 and one 70-200 AFS VR. (You have the 16-85 so I assume you will use that in place of the 17-50 in my kit.) That is it. If you want the other lens in your pocket just in case you get a chance to use it then any of the ones you mentioned will be just fine.
    Thanks Lee. Yes, my plan is to have two lenses, two cameras and two flashes. My D300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 VR II and the other camera ( probably another D300 ) with the 16-85 mm VR or if I can buy it ( or rent it ) the 17-55 mm f/2.8. Initially I thought to have on my second camera, one of the 3 lenses posted in the thread but after all your inputs, you are right and I would not like to take any risk by using a wide angle lens and not be able to use it as it should. I am better off using the 16-85 or the Nikon 17-55.
    if you go back a bit in the thread and look at the 12mm shot i posted, that's actually the proper distance (maybe about 8-10 feet) to avoid the distorted effect. stopping down a bit does help there. but just about any wide-angle lens will have some distortion at the widest focal length and open apertures, even a 17-xx 2.8 lens.
    You are right Eric, having a woman looks fatter than she is, especially if that woman is the bride, will not be any good to build my reputation. I thought any of those lenses were not too complicated to use but after did I read all the inputs in here, I will stick to either the 16-85 that I own or I will buy or rent the 17-55 f/2.8. There are two reasons I wanted to have a wide angle lens : to take shots to a big group of people and to focus background and subject at the same time in some pictures in which the background is appealing to the whole view of the picture in relation to the subject. I have seen some pictures shot with wide angle in which both, the foreground and background, are related and looks great. The depth of field of these lenses is something that it may be useful in some pictures at the wedding. Perhaps, what I can do is to rent one of them, probably the Nikon 12-24 just in case I need it to take some pictures at the reception, in which I will have the time to switch lenses.
    At the ceremony, I will definitely have my 70-200 f/2.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8 ( or the 16-85 ) with two flashes ( SB-800 and SB-900 ). Thank you guys for all your help.
     
  43. I have seen some pictures shot with wide angle in which both, the foreground and background, are related and looks great. The depth of field of these lenses is something that it may be useful in some pictures at the wedding. Perhaps, what I can do is to rent one of them, probably the Nikon 12-24 just in case I need it to take some pictures at the reception, in which I will have the time to switch lenses.
    maurice, shooting with the 17-55 is a sensible idea. i'd just rent one if you can't buy one. you can always shoot that at f/8 if you need DoF.
    what may not be so sensible is picking a paid gig as a time to experiment with UWA. just trying to help you build your rep.
    just in case this may be helpful, when i got the 12-24, i had never shot an UWA before. i took a few scenic shots and thought, wow, this is great. then i tried to do some people shots. the results were not so great. i was either too far back or so close up that faces and body parts got all twisted. that was discouraging. this is not a lens for people shots, i thought. so i shot with other lenses for a while. every now and then, i would look at the tokina, admire its build quality, then put it back in its case. finally, i resolved to teach myself how to use the lens. i went out with a tripod and took some landscape shots at sunset. really took my time setting up shots, manual-focussing at infinity, doing long exposures, etc.--all the things i normally didnt do, covering events fast-n-dirty style. after a couple months, i built up enough confidence to shoot the 12-24 during a daytime festival. i only used it for a few shots, where i wanted to show a big crowd. then i got a gig to do a street fair. i shot 50% of it with the 12-24 and 50% with a telezoom. after that, i did another, and another. when i shot a cycling event with hundreds of cyclists, i used the 12-24 exclusively (it's hard to ride a bike and carry two bodies, much less switch lenses). eventually, i got pretty good at using the 12-24 for people shots, though my main event lenses still remained the 17-50 and 50-150.
    the point is, there are times when an UWA is appropriate, but there's also a learning curve with an UWA and you do want to carefully consider composition. again, most of the time, 17mm is wide enough for people.
    maybe you're a quick study, maurice. but if you do persist in using an UWA, do yourself a favor and shoot an event with it before the wedding. preferably a similar event as to what you'll be shooting for your paid gig.i think you'll find that 12-17 range isn't as good for people shots as you perhaps thought as you really have to watch the edges and keep people out of there, especially at wider FLs and open apertures.
    here's some examples:
    00XuGj-314175584.jpg
     
  44. and, 17mm.
    00XuGl-314175784.jpg
     
  45. 14mm again
    00XuGs-314177784.jpg
     
  46. I recently flogged off my Tokina 11-16 after just six months and bought the 10-24 Nikkor and I was very happy to do so.
    In 30 years of shooting Nikon, I had never bought third-party glass before the Tokina and was therefore totally unprepared for how wretched it would make me feel. Of course, there's a knack to using something like a Tokina: wearing an old moth-eaten cardigan and investing in a pair of cheap shoes can help to make the lens look better than it is. Similarly, a genuine Nikon lens cap can help to deflect the scrutiny of others, though this only really works at a distance. For the brief period I used the Tokina I found myself feeling so grubby, that I was washing my hands and face twice as often.
    Now, that isn't to say that having the Nikkor has been an easy ride. I've had to contend with the sleepless nights, extreme mood swings, nail biting, sweating, blurred vision, loss of appetite and other bodily irregularities that owning it has brought about. But that's the price one pays for giving up one habit to fund another. Mind you, the Tokina was heavy-duty enough to have popped into a sock and used to club my smug, born-again non-smoking husband over the head with. I wish I'd thought of it before.
    But at least I can hold my head up now while I'm out and about, feeling more confident that my Nikkor will not devalue my Versace suit and Gucci shoes... it even looks good with jeans and sweater! And, as a side note, I do think the Nikkor 10-24 gathers a superior image to the Tokina in the 11-16 range (at 10mm you really have to be of a mind to embrace the distortion). If the Tokina did anything positive, apart from reminding me that being poor and looking poor are two different things, it was to underline just how often I found myself needing that 18-24 range on walkabout.
    Merry Christmas
    Nina XXX
     
  47. You might want to also consider that when you are shooting with a variable aperture lens, you really do not know precisely (ie within a tenth of an fstop) what aperture the lens is set at. You know within an half of an fstop or so. But, that is about it. If I'm shooting professionally under a fixed lighting situation, I definitely want a fixed aperture lens so that as I zoom in or out, I have the same exposure across multiple shots.
     
  48. Nina. I know what you mean. I had a Tokina 15 - 30 and I still dream about carrying a tree trunk through a pillow-shaped world of warm colors and birds that sound like cuisinarts. We must asceed to a higher power though. Ken Rockwell.+ He says of the 11-16:
    The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is the best ultrawide zoom available for, Nikon DX cameras better than even Nikon's more expensive 12-24 AF-S DX.​
    Of course he goes on to say of the two Nikon lenses:
    Compared to the 12-24mm which it replaces, the 10-24mm is more cheaply built. The 12-24mm was built to semi-pro standards, but this new 10-24mm feels more dinky and I suspect will break if you bang the front of it into anything hard enough.​
    I don't know what semi-pro standards are but I own a 12-24 Nikkor so I fear my editor might. I will ask her after my next performance review. It occurs to me that my 17-35 F/2.8 must be built to semi-pro standards too because it broke when it was banged by a bull horn. I can't believe Nikon did not affix a little 'things in this lens might be closer than they appear' sticker to it but that is probably just carelessness on their part.
    I understand just how demeaning using third party equipment can be. I have a disgusting Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 that I use while my Nikkor is at El Segundo for its bi-annual spa treatment. Rather than modify my wardrobe to compliment the lens I have taken to looking defiant and saying "Hey, a girl gave it to me because I guess she felt like guilty for making me get dressed and go outside to smoke, alright?". Or. "Leave me alone Mr. 'I have a vest and brand new Canon gear'. I am working here. Besides you can't fool me. No real photographer uses one of those little zip-up CF card holders." Or the always effective: "Nice D700. Which club do you shoot for?"
    Lest we are unfair to the little (I mean BIG) Tokina lens, Ken+ also says of it:
    Here's a secret: take off the filter and hood and and this Tokina 11-16mm works reasonably well as wide as 15mm, if you don't mind softer corners wide-open, on film and FX.​
    That is good to know. Buy this lens and you have the always popular 15-16mm, soft focus FX lens. Of course the fixed-focus fanboys here will still say the $900.00 Nikkor 16mm is better but they forget it costs $300.00 more. (eyeroll).
    But lest we stray to far from the subject here I want to echo what you said about range. The extra 18-24 is probably where one wants to be most of the time anyway. And that is a really big deal if you think about it.
     
  49. Eric, thank you so much for all your post and your opinion based on your own experience, the same to you Nina, Paul, Shun and everybody else you participated in this thread to help me finally decide which lens to use for this upcoming event, in which I can and I should not take the risk to make a mess by using a lens that will not be that easy to use when photographing people as the lenses mentioned above.
    For sure, after all your help, I made my decision to go with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II on one camera and the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 on the other camera. I am just thinking that if I can not buy the 17-55, probably will be a good idea to rent the 24-70 f/2.8 so there will be no gap in between those two lenses, what do you think Eric ? Otherwise, I will stick with the 17-55. I also have the 35 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8 just in case I need to shoot without flash under low light conditions. Whit all those lenses, I am very sure I should not have any problem to shoot this wedding.
    Perhaps in the future, I buy the Nikon 10-24 f/3.5 ( that Nina and Shun have pointed to be a good lens ) to have a wide-angle for occasional shooting and landscaping, and this something that I am not that interested to shoot at for the moment. Will concentrate to get the 17-55 or the 24-70 f/2.8. About this lens, the 24-70, beside it is a superb lens according to reviews, what do you guys think about using this lens on a DX camera like the D300 that I got to shoot a wedding? Do you recommended on the top of the 17-55 ?
    Please advise !!
     
  50. The 17-55 F/2.8 is the right one for the wedding. It will give you the wide angle you need where the 24 may be a bit confining. The missing 15 mm will be no big deal at all. Since you will not be carrying the UWA you will certainly want the wider lens for the wedding.
     
  51. Well, Lee, as far as Ken Rockwell is concerned, I find much of what he writes to be rather scatological, contrary even, and quite often plain wrong.
    But talking of acceding to a higher power, bear in mind that on any day of the week, outside the Nikon R&D facility, you will find a whole bunch of nuns and people in wheelchairs clustered against the perimeter fence because they've heard about the miracles being performed inside. God is in the glass!
    It's also interesting to see just how many Kenko/Tokina 11-16s there are in the Yahoo auctions here in Japan, whilst the 10-24 Nikkor was temporarily out of stock at three of the four outlets I contacted. Maybe the Kenko/Tokina provided a useful stopgap until Nikon got their miracle act together but few here seem thrilled enough to hang onto it now there's a Nikkor that does the job and then some, any more than they'd choose a Kenko filter while there's a Marumi available.
     
  52. maurice, 17-55+70-200 on DX is standard pro kit. it's kind of a boring call, but sometimes boring is good because there are no surprises that way. 24-70 is a superb lens and focus is so fast sometimes i have to do a double-take because i don't believe it could have acquired and locked focus that quickly. but...it will not be wide enough on DX for a wedding. if you go 24-70 with a DX body, which i don't recommend, you will most certainly need a 10-24 or 12-24, which will necessitate lens changes. if, OTOH, you stick to the tried-and-true, predictable and boring choice of 17-55+70-200, you will be shooting instead of switching, which means less missed shots, happy clients, and possible referrals.
    on any day of the week, outside the Nikon R&D facility, you will find a whole bunch of nuns and people in wheelchairs clustered against the perimeter fence because they've heard about the miracles being performed inside.​
    LOL!
     
  53. I still dream about carrying a tree trunk through a pillow-shaped world of warm colors and birds that sound like cuisinarts.​
    whatever you're smoking, i want some!
     

Share This Page

1111