UWA

[j.art.photo.]

Im interested on an UWL for some landscape photography latelly, and found myself debating what should i get?

The lens will be mounted on a crop sensor camera and the nikkor 12-24 f4 or tokina 12-24 f4 II both interest me. I can get them used

for just about US 100 difference. Any experience on them?

[photo5]

<p>Tokina 12-24mm f4 is a superb lens, I had the first version and liked it very much. Nikon 12-24mm f4 even better, though more expensive, some say not worth the extra money. Sigma 10-20mm also a superb lens, not to be overlooked. I had the Nikon 10-24mm and actually preferred the Sigma 10-20mm over the Nikon for image quality, though the Nikon had a better range.</p>

[akshun]

<p>Jose, i have experience and own the 12-24mm f4 nikon lens, it's a great lens which i have used for many of my landscape shots with my D300 and my D80.<br>

Its light and perfect for a walkaround lens. The zoom and focus ring are smooth and tight, very well built.<br>

It also accepts 77mm filters and thats a bonus as most of my pro lenses use them as well.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I would also consider the Sigma 12-24 since it will also work on full frame if you go that route in the future.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If cost is not a concern, at this point I would get Nikon's 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5. It is a bit wider than the 12-24 and while it is also weak on the wide end, the 10-24 is somewhat better in the range they overlap.</p>

<p>The Sigma 12-24 has a bulging front element so that for all practical purposes, you cannot use a front filter on it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I ADORE my tokina 11-16, might want to consider that, too. Used it could be close.</p>

<p>But where are you finding a Nikkor 12-24 for only 100 more than the Tokina... wow! BUY IT! It handles so much better it's worth that difference.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for $100 difference, i would probably get the nikon. that said, i own (and love) the tokina. in four years of use, i have never been disappointed with image quality. one thing that's particularly great about the Toke is the one-touch focus clutch which makes shifting from AF to MF very easy.</p>

<p>the other thing is that as far as UWAs on DX go, 10mm is better than 12mm as a starting point. so i would consider the sigma 10-20 if cost is an issue and the nikon 10-24 if it's not. also, at f/8--which is where i generally like to shoot an UWA--i dont think you're going to see much difference in IQ with any of these lenses unless you're pixel-peeping. in other words, they are all capable of great shots. i remember a few years ago, there was a lot of discussion about which was better. but i've seen so many great shots from all 3 of these lenses that i think it really comes down to technique.</p>

 

[j.art.photo.]

Thank you all, for the prompt reply I think the Nikkor it is.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Jose, exactly which DSLR body/bodies do you have in mind? So of the lenses mentioned above do not have an AF motor built in (i.e. they are not AF-S type lenses), and they cannot AF with some consumer-grade DSLRs. E.g. The Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 has no motor, neither does the earlier version of the Tokina 12-24mm/f4.</p>

<p>Both the Nikon 12-24mm/f4 DX and 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 DX are AF-S lenses.</p>

[j.art.photo.]

Yes Shun, I currently own a couple of d300's and a d70s that just converted for I,R so the 3 are capable of handling

the lenses.