.super wide lens.

[pacha mama photography]

ive been thinking of getting a high quality super wide. so far, the tokina

12-24 looks like my best bet. has anyone used this before or would anyone

recommend a better lens at around the same price rangE?

[rob_shooter]

Sigma 10-20mm is in my bag - the extra 2mm makes a HUGE difference. Obvious usual drawback with such a wide lens but can be fixed in pp.

[ronald_moravec1]

Tried a friends Sigma 10/20 last week. It seems to be a fine lens.

[elliot1]

Check this out:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FJF3

[ShunCheung]

The Tokina 12-24 is the equivalent of a DX lens, so you should be using it on a Nikon or Fuji DX sensor DSLR. Additionally, the Tokina has no AF motor built in, so if you use it on a D40/D40x, there will be no auto focus.

[davidlong]

Ken Rockwell is your friend(?) He has a review and comparison of the Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and Tamron 11-18. And yes, he has actually used them. <a href="http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm">link</a>

[juanjo_viagran]

I had the Tokina 12-24mm and sold it to get the Tokina 10-17mm which I like a lot more.

 

If you looking SUPER wide take a look at the 10-17mm

 

 

 

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/_DSC0068-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[Peter_in_PA]

If a fisheye is what you're after, sure. Some of us (most of us?) would much rather have

rectilinear wide angle.

[iancoxleigh]

I have the Tokina 12-24. It is rugged, well built, and doesn't distort too, too much. But, it has much more CA than I thought it would. I also sometimes wish for wider.

 

If I was doing it again, I might opt for the Sigma. Except, I originally picked the Tokina over the Sigma because the Sigma is variable aperture -- yuck (it is less than f/4 max almost immediately beyond 10mm)! And, also, because I felt it was less robustly built. Plus I had a very badly made Sigma 70-300mm lens that has marred that company's reputation in my mind forever.

[juanjo_viagran]

"Some of us (most of us?)"

 

Speck for yourself mate,lot of people like eyefish lenses, clearly not you, no biddy.. eyefish still selling like hot bread.

[pacha mama photography]

thank you everyone for your responses. ill keep you updated :)

[eric_arnold]

i have the tokina and find i use the 24 end fairly often. the build is nice and tank-like. i get less CA with a polarizer.

[eric_arnold]

nice fish pic. that's pretty w-i-d-e, i'd say. so i take it you're happy with the 10-17? what do you primarily shoot with it?

[Peter_in_PA]

Juanjo is very enamored with his fisheye zoom. I think it would be cool to have, too, but

for purposes of clarification on this thread (in case it's used by someone for reference in

the future), there is a very big difference between a fisheye with its inherent curved line

distortion (Juanjo's very nice photo above is a GREAT example of this) and an ultrawide

zoom which attempts to keep straight lines straight. The purposes of the two of those

lenses are not the same, and they complement each other nicely, too..

 

Many fewer "fisheye" lenses are bought and used than wide-angle, because it is generally

considered a special effect. So, Juanjo, I would have kept both Tokinas, as I think

eventually you will want to take an undistorted super-wide shot, and now don't have the

lens for it. (Although, for many purposes, once there is a correction profile for this lens

built into DXO, it might serve both purposes.)

 

Be careful of buying a fisheye if you really want a super-wide zoom. They are very

different. I myself had a fisheye years ago with film, finally got rid of it, only ever used it

for one photo that I felt was worth keeping... ymmv of course...

[stevea]

If you get the Nikon, you won't need to buy another. Buying the best saves time wondering "what if". Time IS money.

 

Steve Abramson