wild lense

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Hallo, I m looking to have a wild lense for my nikon d40, in one of my post it has turned out that considering what I would like to shoot I need a wild lense...<br>

so I m asking an advise about these lenses, which one do you think is best to my work</p>

<p><strong>Nikon 12 - 24 mm f/4, Tokina 12 - 24 mm f/4, Sigma 10 - 20 mm f/4 - 5.6 and Tamron 11 - 18 mm f/4.5 - 5.6.</strong></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think a fisheye lens will be really <strong>wild</strong>; it is also really wide.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>LOL, Shun...good one! The tokina is good but the sigma is wilder;)</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Perhaps you need a AF-S type lens to auto focus with your camera ? For whatever is your work?, seems that you prefer wide angle zoom lenses.</p>

<p>I would not recommend any of the lenses you mentioned, for your camera, ... and not sure about for your work.<br />Perhaps the kit lens that usually comes with your camera is wide enough, and possibly has the AF-S motor built-in?</p>

<p>If you really mean wild lens?, like for wild life photography, then perhaps you need a lens in focal range of 300mm to 500mm.</p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Shung Leslie thanks but I have forgottens to mention that the fisheye is not for me, i don t like pictures with distortion or fish eyes effect, <br>

I just want to shoot in forest, waterfalls, landscape.... the recent post was that i was looking for the 35 mm lense but many photographers advised me about the tokina 12-24 mm.</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Frank,<br /> As Shun and probably Leslie already understood, you need to show some grace and patience to people as Paolo and me... not native English-speaking guys... I put my hand on fire that Paolo does not think at wild life but at wide lenses... :-)<br /> I agree he needs a lens with AF-S... I have no first hand experience with what he listed but Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 is a fine and very capable lens that I can recommend. It will greatly perform on his camera.<br>

Later Edit: well... Paolo was faster than me...</p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>sorry for the mistake hehe , Mihai I know the nikkor 10-24 mm is expensive and many photographers think that the tokina is a little better but as I know it doesn t AF on the nikon d40 but pictures about landscapers, sunset, waterfalls and forest can be made with over f 18 with tripod in order to focus manually at 3 or 4 meters and it makes all in focus with depht of field.<br>

So the autofocus it is not really necessary in this kind of photos is it>?</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"many photographers advised me about the tokina 12-24 mm" </em> - the Tokina 12-24/4, while it is a good lens, is not the best for your camera, since perhaps it will not auto focus. If you could live with manual focusing, then it would work, but why suffer? Just get an AF-S type lens.</p>

<p>I am surprised many of your photographers missed the auto focusing issue with the Tokina lens on your camera. May be you need to find some better photographers to talk to ?</p>

<p>Perhaps a Sigma 10-20 HSM (High Speed Motor) would work better ? Get 12-24/2.8 Nikkor FX, AF-S lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sorry, I was just picking on a typo, which can happen to anybody. As a matter of fact, English is not my first language either, but I have been living in the US since I was a teenager so that I don't really count. By now, English is my best language but I fully understand that it is not always easy to learn; I struggled a lot learning English when I was little.</p>

<p>In any case, for a D40, most likely you want an AF-S type lenes to maintain AF. If you can afford the Nikon, I prefer the newer 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX over the older 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX because the new lens is wider. Otherwise, the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 with AF motor built in should work quite well. Please keep in mind that the older version of the Tokina 12-24 has no motor inside.</p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Thank you Frank but i think that the photographers that told me about tokina have considered that the autofocus in some kind of photography like landscaper, inside a forest and so on is not really necessary but this as I want to say is very personal, but thanks a lot about your point of view and Shun thanks a lot too</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Mihai Ciuca:<br>

I was nowhere desrespectful, or insensitive to Paolo. I just raise another possibility with a question mark.<br>

I gave more attention and patience to Paolo than Leslie and Shun both together, both advising with single statements.</p>

 

[CvhKaar]

<p>Hi Paolo,<br /> If you realy want it w i d e , then you could also consider the sigma 8 - 16 mm zoom .... little distortion and as wide as possible at this moment in time ...</p>

<p>I'll try to post two examples..<br>

oops the evening light is at 12mm..</p>

<div></div>

[CvhKaar]

<p>And another one, my favourit beer...</p><div></div>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Frank I really thanks for your advise, I have just started to think about the sigma 10-20, it seems to be a great lense, the Nikon ones are too expensive for me, around 1000 dollars new and 600-700 used. I found for 470 dollar the sigma new, I checked some of the pictures taken with the sigma and they looks very nice and the quality too.<br>

If you have more advise please don t hesitate </p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Frank I really thanks for your advise, I have just started to think about the sigma 10-20, it seems to be a great lense, the Nikon ones are too expensive for me, around 1000 dollars new and 600-700 used. I found for 470 dollar the sigma new, I checked some of the pictures taken with the sigma and they looks very nice and the quality too.<br>

If you have more advise please don t hesitate </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>I really apologise if from my note you understood that I considered your (or Shun / Leslie) attitude as disrespectful or insensitive. Honestly I didn't considered that... my only point was that even we are on an English forum, when someone speaks about wild lens listing UWA zooms and signing with a very italian name... we have to really guess which is his real question. Because I am in Paolo's shoes, it happen several times to me... and believe me that sometimes you can come in really embarrassing situations... not like in a funny one like this. I made confusions like "unvaluable" instead of "invaluable" and I called a pastor with the name "Guy" as "Gay"... And probably the list is very long with situations when nobody corrected me :-)</p>

<p>C.P.M. - I need to test / taste :-) your beer :-) Looks very good!</p>

<p>Paolo, you are right, for landscapes MF is right and I often do so... but you need to consider the poor quality of D40 viewfinder. Unless you are simply focusing at infinity... for me would be very hard to have MF on that body.</p>

<p> </p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Mihai thanks for considering the english grammar in the forum! I studied English in New Zealand 2 years ago but there is always something to learn about it, I think to consider more lenses with Af than the ones that doesn t has, I m reading about the sigma 10-20 and it is really good quality </p>

[Two23]

<p>The Sigma 10-20mm HSM is a great lens and relatively inexpensive, especially used. I had one and liked it. (Sold to buy Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, which won't work on your camera.) What I'd suggest for you is either that or the Sigma 8-16mm HSM. It's both wide and wild.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think everybody here was pretty respectful and aware of the difficulties <em>written</em> (especially) English* presents even for native speakers, much less for those that have started out in another language altogether.</p>

<p>In this case, initially, from the information given, it was ambiguous whether a <strong>wide</strong>-angle lens or a <strong>wild</strong>life lens was being asked about. All has been straightened out. The list of lenses that followed did not look like a part of the post in boldface type at a glance....</p>

<p>The ultra-wides like the Canon 10-22mm do not have fisheye distortion. However, all wide angle lenses will exaggerate close-up things in relation to far-off things. On the other hand, telephoto lenses will seem to contract the distances between near and far. In both cases, it has to do with the differences between the point of view of the eye and lens and the way the picture is viewed.</p>

<p>_______<br /> *note to self: start English spelling reform tomorrow.... :)</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Paolo, do not worry about the auto focus "issue" that some people have been raising. Tokina added a focus motor to their 12-24mm back in 2008. The new version is called the "DX II".</p>

<ul>

<li> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092403tokina.asp</li>

</ul>

<p>So, just make sure you don't get the older version, and you will be fine. High volume stores should pretty much have cleared out the older version a couple of years ago. There may be stores that have the older version, so check that they have the "DX II" version.</p>

<p>The Tokina is still my primary recommendation for you. I have never been impressed by the image quality of the "bargain" lenses, like those f4-5.6 variable aperture wides you list, from any manufacturer. I've shot the 11-18mm Tamron, and was quite disappointed. I think many people were, which is probably why Tamron discontinued the lens and replaced it with the 10-24mm f4-5.6. I haven't shot that lens, but I've seen disappointing reviews.</p>

<p>Why is the older Tamron 11-18mm on your list? Are you only shopping for used lenses?</p>

<p>The constant f4 Nikon and Tokina are both solid performers, with extremely high image quality, and very good mechanical construction. They're rugged and reliable. The Tokina, at $550 for a new lens, and about $400 on the used market, is a bargain, more performance for a given amount of money than any other wide zoom, I'd say.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Frank Skomial - I am surprised many of your photographers missed the auto focusing issue with the Tokina lens on your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How could people "miss" an "issue" that does not exist? For years now, Tokina has been making 12-24mm lenses that autofocus just fine on the D40.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was nowhere desrespectful, or insensitive to Paolo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Respectfully, Frank, you are disrespectful and insensitive to pretty much everyone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>May be you need to find some better photographers to talk to ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, entirely.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Joseph:<br>

<em>Respectfully, Frank, you are disrespectful and insensitive to pretty much everyone."</em><br>

Perghaps only to you where I point out your mistakes.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Frank, congratulations. That was perhaps the largest scale example of a pot throwing glass stones that I have ever seen.</p>

<p>In order to point out a mistake, you would actually have to be, well, correct about something more often than not. Otherwise, it is your alleged correction that is the error.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hi paolo,<br>

i have the tokina 12-24, it's a very good lens. AF is nice to have for people shots at the long end, but you actually don't need it for tripod work, manual-focusing at infinity, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Frank, Joseph,</p>

<p>I do not want to be disrespectfull, and disturb a "Good Mariage", but please may i suggest respectfully to discuss your differences on an other forum more suited to that kind of stuff ?</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Paolo, also check these sites for some pictures made with some of the lenses that your looking at:</p>

<p>Photosig.com<br>

Pixelpeeper.com<br>

Pbase.com</p>