A "Super-Wide Angle" Lenses Shootout

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a

href="http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af

/wide_angles_shootout/index.html">http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour

ces/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html</a>

<b></b> </p>

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> While the dreaded N is there instead of the glorious C :-) I

think many of you would love to read on the other T, S and T

options....</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[robert_nancarrow]

Thanks Yakim, it's a very nice report of the attributes of these lenses. Before I switched over to the Canon system I went through 2 new Nikkor 12-24's (on a D70). One had a decidedly yellow cast to the pictures while the other had soft focus just on the left side of the frame with each picture, both hunted focus more than necessary. I now use a Tokina 12-24 on my 20D and it is better overall in image quality, sharpness, color, build, than either Nikkor. I guess quality control is an issue with all lenses because I would dispute the findings based on my personal experience. Bob.

[edward_h]

These guys are funny. They mention that they didn't include the Sigma 12-24 because they were comparing only DX glass, directly after which they go on babbling about how useful DX glass is on FF bodies.

 

And these Nikonians are far from fair: They love the Nikon 12-24 in spite of the insane price for a cropped, handicapped lens and then they take a crap on the Sigma 10-22 because, you see, it's a lot slower than the N12-24 (f5.6 vs f4 - what an amazing difference!).

 

They also have nothing really bad to say about the N12-24 while the Sigma 10-22, which differs not at all much, gets this-lens-is-bad-if-you-Occasionally uses their DX lenses on a film body" comment. And somehow the N12-24 works great on a FF body?

 

*sigh*

 

Let's not take these guys too seriously.

[ilkka_nissila]

Huh, the difference between an f/4 and f/5.6 is quite significant in terms of viewfinder usability and considering that you can shoot the Nikkor wide open there is no question in my mind which I would buy. I myself use the 14 mm and 20 mm Nikkors though.

[geoffm]

I don't understand how the focal length of a lens can change depending on which body you use. Quote

 

"The Sigma 10-20mm EX HSM lens is designed for use on digital bodies only. It is in Sigma?s ?EX? line, which designates a pro build quality and distinct finish. In 35mm terms, the lens delivers a view similar to a 15-30mm lens; very wide, indeed!"

 

Is this lens a 10-20 or a 15-35? Are they adopting some sort of bizarre measure of "focal length equivalence" or something? Are APS-size-only lenses designated according to their equivalent focal length in 35mm terms (for which they cannot be used!) Am I losing the plot or are they?

[geoffm]

Oh, I think I get it!

They mean that this lens on a 1.6 crop gives the same FOV as a 15-30 on a full frame.

I guess it was me that lost it for a moment. Sorry.

Still, I think that it was a somewhat confusing way to put it (esp since "35mm" does not mean the same as "full frame".)

[robin_sibson1]

You have a point, Geoff, but I guess you have to be going on for a senior citizen to remember when "35mm" did NOT imply FF. Me, I cut my teeth on a Wrayflex, the original 4/3 system.

[drjay]

With all due respect to your opinions, as one of the contributing authors of this article I

find it humourous that you don't appear to understand crop factor. Nikon DSLRs have a

crop factor of approximately 1.5x compared to 35mm film. The lenses we tested have

image circles designed for this smaller sensor size. While focal length is focal length, the

angle of view depends on the format. Put a 100mm lens on a 645 body, and you get a

different angle of view than you would on a 135 fomat camera. As a general convention,

we tend to think about angle of view in 35mm terms, as that is what we grew up with.

Therefore, when we stated that the 10-20mm is effectively a 15-30mm lens, what we

meant is that you get an angle of view similar to that of a 15-30mm lens on a film body.

Maybe we should re-edit the article to make this point more clear.

 

Regarding the Sigma, I don't feel we "panned" that lens. In fact, after conducting the

review, I purchased one. Why? Because I'm pairing it with a 17-55mm DX midrange

zoom, it has HSM focusing and great build quality for $500. For me, this lens gave me

less overlap than a 12-24mm lens paired with a 17-55mm. On the other hand, my

colleage who already owned the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 zoom, enjoys the 12-24mm range

and would dearly miss the 21-24mm "gap" if he went with a 10-20mm.

 

As for using DX lenses on film bodies-- well, some folks out there will do it in a pinch.

The image circle on some of these lenses is large enough to cover the 35mm frame at the

longer focal lengths. Not something that is "mission critical", but don't you think that it is

useful to know? I know that the Sigma I own will vignette at ANY focal length on my F5.

However, that's ok by me: I don't plan on using it on a film body. Other shooters may

differ in the gear they bring to a shoot.

 

My opinion is that we were exceedingly fair in our review. Yes, the Nikkor was optically

the best, but that is a hair-splitting category. Other factors, like price, focal length range,

and weight, may outweigh overall optical quality when you are making a purchasing

decision.

 

Sincerely,

Jason P. Odell