Wide angle lens for D7000

I need a wide angle lens for my D7000. Debating between Tokina 12-24 and 11-16. f/2.8 of 11-16 is attractive but do we really need that

fast in wide?

<p>Not every one does. It depends what you are shooting. If you don't feel you need it, don't get it.</p>

<p>..And if you don't <em>KNOW</em> the need, then get one! ;-)<br />I have the Nikkor 12-24/4.0 which is really good and I chose (sp.?) it over the Tokina some 4 years ago. And that would be my advice for you too!<br />I find myself using the 12-24 often at 12mm on the DX D200/300, although on 'FX-format' (= slide film) I never went beyond 24mm. Translating: 12mm on DX 'is' 18mm on FX and that would make 16mm similar to my trusted 24.<br />And about 'fast'.. 4.0 has been enough for me on DX. You need a <em>really</em> good lens if you plan to use a 2.8 lens wide-open. Is that Tokina good enough?</p>

<p>I have the D7000 paired with a sigma 10-20mm. I went with the sigma just because it was cheaper than any other wide angle lens and because it was 10mm wide. the tokina is 11mm, so maybe not that big a deal. as for the aperture, I found that I shot F8 or higher when shooting buildings and walk around type shots. when I do landscape, I am at F11 or higher and on a tri-pod. I will use F4 if I need low light situations, but, I can't remember the last time a decision like that came up when using the sigma.</p>

<p>I have read a ton of reviews and would go with the 11-16mm instead of the 12-24mm. for the price, you can't go wrong with a used sigma 10-20mm. I got mine for $300. the tokina ranges from 450-550 from what I have seen on CL. and the nikon 10-24mm can go for 700+ on CL. so, if money is an issue, the sigma will do more than enough for an average consumer looking for a fun wide angle lens. If you plan on making big prints or want the low light capabilities, the tokina 11-16mm would serve better.</p>

<p>You could also just use a speedlight for low light situations. If you're indoors, then a speedlight would come in handy for sure.</p>

<p>You don't buy the 11-16 because you need f2.8 (even though it's very useable there). You buy it because at f5.6, it's two-stops down, in the sweet spot... and because if you could buy a 10 or 11mm f2.8 prime, you would. With any other ultra-wide for DX, you are either one stop down or wide open at f5.6.</p>

<p>I almost exclusively us f5.6 and f8 on this lens and LOVE the results.</p>

<p>That said, for MANY people the overlap inherent with a 12-24 makes WAY more sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You don't buy the 11-16 because you need f2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I bought my 11-16 because of the f/2.8, for photographing a yearly conference that did not permit flash, and held some individual workshops in very small rooms. For landscape photography, you'll be using a tripod and wouldn't need the speed. Buying today, I would probably go for a 10-24mm Nikon so as to have something very wide, along with some overlap with a 17-55mm, to avoid changing lenses too often.</p>

<p>I have had the Tokina 12-24, and I loved mine. It's relatively allround, and I frequently used it between 18 and 24 mm as well. I had the 18-70 and 16-85VR alongside, yet the rather large overlap turned out quite useful frequently, as both lenses could stay on longer. I know for sure with a 11-16, I would have had to change lenses far more often - and that would have made the 11-16 a little used highly specialised lens (truth be told: when I bought the 12-24, the 11-16 did not yet exist).<br>

So, it boils down to how you feel you will use this lens, how it fits into your style. The 11-16 is optically better, I think, but less convenient. The Tokina 12-24 is very good value for money and relatively convenient. You cannot really go wrong either way.</p>

<p>I had the Tokina 12-24 with a D70s (paired with a Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4), built like a tank, it's as good if not better than the Nikon. I recently traded it in for the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 that I now use on a D300s paired with a Tamron 17-50 VC. I shoot limited light philharmonic concerts in tight venues. Depending on your need, either of the Tokinas is a great choice.</p>

<p>I do agree with Peter. I do have the Tokina 11-16 and I did not buy it because of the wide aperture but because I needed something wide in my DX camera and because I could not afford the Nikon 10-24 which is the lens I would like to have instead, because you have more reach. However, the difference between those lenses is minimal in the wide end but on the long end, is the difference that is matters. Whenever I need to go over 16mm, I must switch to my other lens 16-85 and that is what I would not have to do if I had the 10-24. If you can afford the Nikon one, I would not look back if I was you. <br>

And you don't need a fast lens to shoot landscaping. As Peter said, f/5.6 - f/11 ( that range ) is what you need and a good tripod to have the job done. Sometimes you may need to shoot architecture inside buildings and the wide aperture will help, however, if you use a tripod, you don't really need a wide aperture so you can lower the speed and shoot even with a remote and tripod. Now if tripod is not permitted, then, you would have the option to go as wide as f/2.8. Hope this help and have a happy shooting.</p>

<p>I will echo what others have said, which is that this depends on what you shoot. <br>

I have the 12-24, which I use all the time and am very happy with. But I use it because my most common setup is to carry the 12-24 along with a 50-150. I don't use midrange zooms (don't even own one anymore) and I shoot at 24mm a lot. If I used a 17-50, I might make a different decision. </p>

<p>For years, I tried to make the 12-24 and 24-85 combo work for me - it entailed a lot of lens changes because of the rather inconvenient (for me) break at 24mm. I then moved to a 11-16 and 17-55 combo, now augmented by a 16-35 and a 16-85. For a few years, I also kept the 12-24 as I liked the lens a lot and it came in handy when I only wanted to carry one ultra-wide. As was already pointed out, the 11-16 is rather specialized - but to me the break at 16mm works a lot better than the one at 24mm. It is true though that it gets called to use rather infrequently - and if it does, it needs to come off quickly again. In addition, I use it quite a bit at f/2.8 when shooting interiors and don't have access to or can't use a tripod - so in contrast to what Peter said above - I did buy mine for the f/2.8. Just recently, I reluctantly sold the 12-24, realizing that I had used it less and less frequently - but I did like it a lot in the 7 years I owned it. The 16-35 is pretty much taking its place now - to me it's a better range for a walkaround lens; in addition, the VR comes in handy when f/4 doesn't allow for short enough shutter speeds in dim light (of course of use only for static subjects).</p>

<p>I also had a chance to compare the Nikon 12-24 with the Tokina 12-24 (2nd version) - optically, they seemed to be at par to me; with just a tad more tendency to flare with the Tokina.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the 12-24 f4 Tokina. It seems fine the way it is to me. I bought the lens for scenics but I found that the distant aspects of a scenic looks to minuscule when using the wide end. I do use it for buildings especially interiors a lot. Mostly I shoot it at f5.6, f8 or f11. I think an f2.8 would make the lens even more bulky and heavier which I would not like. It would make the viewfinder brighter which would be great especially inside a building. However if I lost the lens somehow I would not replace it as I am pretty good with my 24mm f2.8 Nikon prime lens. All around I think it is a very nice lens but I don't seem to use it very often. However I just took a photo of a quilt with it that my wife has made for her niece so you never know when it will be the thing to have. </p>

<p>I have the Tokina 12-24 and I get by fine at f/4 but I wish it were 2.8. Autofocus is faster and more accuate on a fast lens because more light is getting to the AF sensors, even if you're shooting at a smaller aperture. A faster lens means a brighter image in the viewfinder, which is important in low light situations so you can see what you're shooting. And there are times when you simply need every stop you can get when the light is low and you either can't or don't want to use flash.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your inputs. Couple of more questions. As 11-16 is limited in zoom will cropping compensate it? If so paying $200 more might be worth and adding the speed of f/2.8. Also I have 18-55 kit lens will this make a good range? I am happy with 18-55 for its price. But I want to upgrade. Just to give an idea, I have 50mm f/1.8, 70-300mm VR, so trying to have decent glass(es) on the wide end. One option I am thinking Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 10mm. Another tokina 11-16mm and keep the 18-55. Comments please.</p>

 

<p>Sourav Roy,</p>

<p>I have a D300. My main go-to lens is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. My next lens is the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. To round out my lens kit I went with the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It is great for me. I don't use it a lot, but when I need it it is really a great lens. In the attached photo, the sign is 2 - 3 feet to my left.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>As 11-16 is limited in zoom will cropping compensate it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much would you intend to crop? If to the equivalent of 24mm, then you're going to lose quite a few pixels.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also I have 18-55 kit lens will this make a good range?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean together with the 11-16? You won't be missing the 17mm, if that is what you are asking. There really isn't much you could upgrade your 18-55 to within Nikon's lens line-up - except the 16-85 which doesn't give you all that much more. Or you could get the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4. Or the Sigma 17-50/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One option I am thinking Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 10mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the 10.5mm fisheye? That's quite a specialized lens - even more so than the 11-16. Fairly expensive too - considering the few occasions it will actually see use (that's at least how it works for me).</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Thanks all for your inputs. Couple of more questions. As 11-16 is limited in zoom will cropping compensate it?</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Sourav, the idea to shoot with a wide angle lens is to get as close as you can to your main subject and that is when things get interested. You can crop if you want to but remember that this lens have a lot of barrel distortion and if you crop and correct barrel distortion, you will have nothing in your pic. <br>

I do recommend to buy PT LENS ( only $25 US ) to correct barrel distortion when you need it or want it. Now, this lens "feels" like you don't have enough range between the wide end and the long end, that is why some people does not like it. If you want to go wide and want more reach, then your option is 12-24 or 10-24 so will have and "feel" there is enough range to cover what you want. However, I never shot with those lenses but the 11-16 and I do like it a lot. As I said before, I would like to have the 10-24 so I would not need to be switching to my other lens when I need more than 16 mm to shoot at. </p>

<p>Also, I don't think I ever had the need to shoot at f/2.8 with this lens. It is good to have it though but I do prefer to use a remote and tripod instead choosing a wide aperture. This lens is a bit soft at the wide end and it is much better at 13 and above. </p>

<p>Here is a sample shot with this lens. </p><div></div>

<p>One more sample for you ... </p><div></div>

<p>i've had the tokina 12-24/4 for six years. it was my first 3rd party lens purchase. at f/8, which is where i normally shoot landscapes, it is just as sharp as the 11-16. at 5.6, the 11-16 will be sharper, but you may need more DoF. in bright light, f/8 is no problem, and for night landscape pics, i normally use a tripod anyway. autofocus isnt as big a deal with a wide angle lens.</p>

<p>the one big advantage the 12-24 has over the 11-16 is range, which translates to more versatility in the field. with a 12-24, you can use it as a landscape lens throughout the entire range, and as a people lens from 18-24mm. when shooting people with a 12-24, you can get away with 5.6 or even f/4 and still get acceptable sharpness.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think an f2.8 would make the lens even more bulky and heavier which I would not like.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, the 11-16 and 12-24 are about the same size.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As 11-16 is limited in zoom will cropping compensate it? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>not really. you have some latitude for cropping, depending on what camera you're using, but i wouldn't rely on this overly, since you will also shrink resolution, which impacts quality when printing large.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One option I am thinking Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 10mm. Another tokina 11-16mm and keep the 18-55. Comments please.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>do you mean the 10.5mm nikon? that's a fisheye lens, with extreme distortion. really kind of a specialized, one-trick pony, but useful if you want to do stitched panoramas. one thing to keep in mind is that the tokina 12-24 will be better from 18-24 than the nikon 18-55, particularly with regards to distortion. you would really see this at 18mm, where the nikon will have its most distorted image, while the tokina would be well-controlled. the 11-16 makes more sense if you also upgrade from the kit lens to the 16-85 or a 2.8 standard zoom.</p>

 

<p>Thanks to all again. Though I have not decided but close. I will buy Tokina 12-24 if I don't upgrade 18-55. So here is the question again specifically after Eric's point, which lens to upgrade from 18-55. I have used 16-85 but din't think worth the money. Sigma 17-50 or 17-70 or Tamron 17-50. If I upgrade this will go with Tokina 11-16.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have used 16-85 but din't think worth the money. Sigma 17-50 or 17-70 or Tamron 17-50.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i use the sigma 17-50 OS personally. it's worth it if you need to shoot at 2.8-f/4, which i do as a photojournalist quite often. it's also quite good stopped down. and it's stabilized. havent used the 17-70 but IMO the extra 20mm isn't as big a deal as the constant 2.8. for pure landscape i think you could get away with the 18-55, the only real issue is distortion at 18mm and maybe build quality. i'd also look at the sigma 8-16 with the caveat that it wouldn't address the distortion issue at 17 or 18mm you'd have with a zoom. between 12-24 and 11-16? bottom line: lot of good choices in DX UWA-land. even the sigma 10-20/3.5 deserves a look.</p>

<p>I have had both the Nikon 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20. I retained the Sigma 10-20 and it is the lens on my D7000 80% of the time. Then again, I love the wide angle POV. I can't imagine wanting a shallow depth of field with that wide a lens -- the only reason for speed in my mind. The D7000 is great through ISO 1600 and acceptable at ISO 3200. The camera more than compensates for the previous speed needed in lenses. BTW, I have had the 10-20 for some time and find it durable and good glass.</p>

<p>I am seeing two versions of 12-24, DX and DX II, understand the DX II has in built auto focus motor, which I don't need with D7000. It also seems to have improved on flare and ghosting. Is it worth the diff of $100.</p>

<p>The D7000 with the 12-24mm DX I would probably be just fine. Unless the DX II has better optics....if that's the case, then $100 is no big deal. </p>

<p>Good point Tony. Does DX II has better optics?</p>