To wait or not to wait......

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Just buy it from a recognised ebay dealer in Hong Kong. 3 days delivery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When the lens arrives, check the hologram and make sure that there are 4 notches on the hologram. :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>glenn's 2.8 pic looks very usable, though...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20 and while it's not my first choice for shooting people, I don't hesitate to shoot people with it. Yes there is distortion of people at the edges but first that's the price you pay for a lens that gets it all in ( you wouldn't be using it if you could use a less wide lens) and second people have gotten used to seeing the distortion and most accept it. I have several National Geographic books for example, and they have many such shots. My wife watches many of those home renovation shows and they show many shots with ultrawideangle lenses and even FF fisheyes and many of those shots have people in them. I often see group shots in the newspaper and in magazines shot with ultrawides. All of this exposure (no pun intended) to these pictures have gotten people used to the distortion and they accept it.</p>

<p>Personally I like all of the above shots and have no problem with the distortion. Like so many things in photography, it's a matter of taste.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Hi Shun,</p>

<p>That perspective distortion implies physical relationships within the frame that, for me, makes for a more interesting shot. Not always, of course, but that is the attraction to me of wide angles, whether it's for a landscape or people shot. I'd agree it isn't the best for traditional portraiture as it's not particularly flattering most of the time, that's obvious - but using the photo you pointed out, I like the perspective seen with one of my kids deep in a crevice between two boulders while my other kid is sitting practically on top of him. Personally I find it to be somewhat interesting compositionally and to bring me back to the site in a multi-dimensional way, for lack of a better term, that a normal or longer lens wouldn't. You can also see that we're in a canyon, and you can see the sky, even though that information is revealed in only a small part of the frame. I think a normal lens would have made for a pretty boring photo here while the ultrawide made it kind of an interesting one. Not that it's anything particularly special but for a basic family shot under harsh light I find some interest in it, at least.</p>

<p>That's really my point - that the persectives, if you like wide angles, work well for people just as they can for scenics - distortion naturally having to be understood as a side effect.</p>

<p>By the way I always notice people mentioning problems with Tokinas' wide angles in these threads. Just for the record I've had two 12-24s and the 11-16 and haven't had problems with any of them. (Nor have I had problems with any of my Nikon lenses). They have all been very sharp.</p>

<p>For what it's worth...</p>

[kenn_lau]

<p>If you can't wait anymore, get yourself a Tokina 12-24mm/f4 DX and use it for the time being. Evaluate its performance and decide if you'd want to keep it. Keep it if you're happy. Otherwise, you could put it up for adoption before getting your preferred Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 DX. Consider the additional difference that you'd have to fork out for the 11-16mm as your rent for the 12-24mm.</p>

<h3 ><a onmousedown="return clk(this.href,'','','res','1','')" href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tokina_12-24_f4_review.html" ><em><br /> </em> </a></h3>

[peter_kervarec]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the Tokina 12-24 and it has been soft wide open at f4. I've had to stop it down several stops to get sharper photos, even then if I can go f8 or smaller the results are much better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Joe, In my case not true. I used this lens to photograph a mining operation 1000 feet underground over a 12 month period, always wide open at F4 because of no light or very little light available. It is as sharp as my 17-35 AFs Nikon, well built and a reasonably priced no frills performer. I would recommend it over the 11- 16 even though I havent tried it (11-16). It has a better zoom range, is cheaper and if you shoot interiors such as I do, its just about perfect. The only issue it has is there's a little CA when shooting landscapes with tree branches or sharply defined edges. In defence of that, I think there is a degree of CA with all lenses.</p>