jason_tanner Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I know a lot depends on use, but I have no experience with a wide angle (I use a D200 by the way) and so I debate between those two. I already have the 18- 200mm VR and I have the 50mm f/1.8, but I wonder about getting the sharpter lens or the wide angle. I shoot a little bit of everything right now. You can see at http://tannerphotography.net and http://byutanner.blogspot.com. Eventually I want to get rid of the 18-200mm and have just the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 and the 12-24mm, but money definately doesn't allow that just yet. I'm a recently married student. So any thoughts would be greatly appreciated:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_flanigan Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I own both. The 70-200 VR is the money maker for me. And to be honest, I hate my 12-24mm. awful distortion. I only use it for a few shots every shoot. My favorite set up that works best for me is the 17-55mm on my D2Hs and my 85MM f/1.4 on my d200. Respectfully, Sean http://seanflaniganphotography.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 The 70-200 is a brilliantly useful lens, can't go wrong with that. I don't have enough experience with the 12-24 to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 The 70-200/2.8 AFS VR and the 17-55/2.8 AFS DX make a good combination. This setup would work well for weddings, events, landscapes and architecture. Both lenses are sharp enough to get the best out a D200. I use a 17-35, and use a 28-70 to fill the gap. The 70-200 is a remarkable lens - very sharp and useful down to 1/15 second. In the interrim, you would have the wide end covered with the 18-200. I would recommend the 17-55 ahead of the 12-24 and lose the 18-200. The distortion of the Nikkor 12-24 is quite low. What most people think is "distortion" is actually caused by perspective (view point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_flanigan Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Edward, the distortion on the 12-24mm in not "quite low" You absolutly cannot put people near the edge of the frame without awfull streaching and elongation of subjects....but what else can you expect, it's 12mm. It doesn't work the same way as a 17-35 did on a film camera, so yeah focal length perspective has something to do with it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Comparing the 70-200 and 12-24 is like comparing apples and oranges. I happen to have both, but I use them for totally different purposes. I don't know Jason at all, but when one asks this type of questions, I feel that you are not at all sure about what you need. In that case you might as well buy nothing for now. The 18-200 is a decent enough lens; with the 50mm/f1.8, that should be able to last you for a while (e.g. a few months) until you determine what you need. In the mean time, shoot more and develop your area of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 Thanks for all the insight. From what it sounds like, the 12-24mm is more for people who have a particular need to fill (shooting in tight quarters). Thanks for all the insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 Sean, Could you clarify your comment that the 70-200mm is your money maker, but you'd prefer to shoot with the 85mm and the 17-55mm attached. Do you use it third to the other two or am I misunderstanding? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 Shun, I know they are quite different. That was why I wanted feedback. I am interested in teh 12-24 because I have no experience with a wide angle lens. I know they would have very different purposes. And I can't afford to purchase every lens that I want and so I need to pick between them. I guess I don't think you understood my question, but maybe I don't know enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristanlaing Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I don't understand these responses. Unless you hate landscape photography, get the 12-24. You already have a lens that goes to 200mm, and sure the f2.8 VR is better, but 90% of the time there is no difference. However, the 12-24 (and the tokina-cheaper, is almost as good), gives you a totally new prospective. I just got a widle angle zoom for my film camera and went out and took some great shots I never could have had before. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=609153 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 Tristan, I liked the photos. That was why I was wondering. I have read that other brands have a decent alternative, although Nikon is the highest quality. That was why I was wondering if there was an added perspective that is really handy since I've never shot with a wide angle. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 With a wide angle, oval-shaped people's heads is not indicative of distortion. It's a natural side-effect of a wide angle. That doesn't mean that the 12-24 might not have distortion, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_flanigan Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Jason, The 70-200 VR is my money maker. When I am shooting sports and covering events, my normal PJ work I am with the 70-200 VR. However, wedding season is upon us and the better dof I get with the 85 1.4 is great! There is something magical about that lens. But, the 70-200 is much more versatile and with the VR an even better low light lens than the 85 1.4 Cheers, http://seanflaniganphotography.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 in line with what shun wanted you to see, since you don't have the money, yet, for the target lens, why not spend more time with the 18-200mm to bring out your target lens. by that time, you would have raised the money for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Sean said, "You absolutly cannot put people near the edge of the frame without awfull streaching and elongation of subjects" The stretching of heads close to the sides and corners is due to the geometry of projecting three dimensional objects on to a plane, not some flaw in the lens. It occurs in all lenses, not just wide angle lenses, but increases with decreasing focal length (the angle of view). This "distortion" goes away if you view the print at a distance equal to the magnification times the focal length. Next time, hold the 8x10 inch print 4 inches from your eye ;-) The 12-24 does have some pincussion/barrel distortion depending on the zoom length. However, this distortion is comparable to that of prime, retrofocus lenses. I don't think Nikon has had a true wide angle lens (like the Zeiss Biogon) since the 21/4 in the early 60's. You had to use that lens with the mirror locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Good points all of you. I guess for some perspective, I'm not making this purchase this week or even this month, but I like to have perspective (I plan lots in advance). And I think it is easy to say get used to your equipment, but you learn a lot with better equipment in what can be done. I guess I am already interested in both since I can see where shots could be improved with them (well part wonder with the wide angle). But with that being said, I agree with the insight to take more pictures for now. And thanks for the website tidbit, I'm building it right now and working through things (the php, mysql database is going to be a killer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Derringer or rifle, that is the question. Answer: Get a pistol (17-55/2.8). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Here are my standard "garage door" shots with the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX, at 12mm and 24mm respectively. Clearly there is distortion, but I wouldn't call that serious. It is the usual pincushion distortion on the long (24mm) end and barrel on the short end. Actually at 12mm, the distortion is a bit complicated to correct. Jason really needs to decide for himself whether he needs a telephoto first or wide angle first. That is a decision that one needs to make on his/her own. For example, if you want wide, we can help discuss the pros and cons between the Nikon 12-24 and Tokina 12-24, etc.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jams Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 why not look at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM...1/2 cheaper then the nikon...jsut a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_lester1 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Hi Jason, What is it that you are currently unable to do without the purchase of one of the above mentioned lenses? I did take the time to view the gallery of images on your site and would better be able to offer advisement if you could answer that question. Nice work by the way! In particular the way you use dark colors and background to enhance the mood and expression of the main subject. I hope to see more! Sincerely Gary Lester http://homepage.mac.com/colorscape/<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted December 19, 2006 Author Share Posted December 19, 2006 Gary, Thanks for the response and I have since come to a better conclusion. I don't know when finances will permit a new purchase, but the thing I want is to be able to shoot at higher shutter speeds in low light environments and also the improved bokeh for portraits and other things. But I now have all my photos on my website and that has improved a lot. 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