Lens choice: 12-24 and 24-70 OR 12-24 and 2x teleconverter?

[danielsimionescu]

<p>Hi,<br>

It's time for me to update (upgrade) my equipment and I will start with the lenses. The question is if instead of buying two lenses I can "trick" it with one lens and one teleconverter. The plan "C" (if the vignetting of the teleconverter is an issue like I heard) would be to buy a fixed focal length (14mm or lower) and a 24-70.<br>

I own a Nikon D80 (I will upgrade the camera too, but lenses are the priority now...) I mostly shoot landscapes and rarely events. Now I have an opportunity to shoot house interiors where a wide (aspherical) is a must.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[AJG]

<p>Teleconverters and wide angle lenses are usually a bad mix--not worth the compromises in image quality. For what your needs are, I would get a good wide angle lens. The 12 - 24 would probably be the most convenient for this.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>This questions is easy -- you need both lenses and a teleconvertor won't cut it. As Andrew points out, teleconvertors are not meant for wide angle lenses. They are designed to work with telephoto lenses, and the good ones are often optimized to be paired with specific or groups of lenses from their respective manufacturers. Besides the issue of image quality, they also rob a stop or two of light. Since wide angles are already more difficult to focus precisely (because they have so much depth of field that the difference between in focus and out of focus is harder to see), the darker image makes focusing even more difficult. If you end up with a 12-24 or 14-24 coupled with the 24-70, you'll have two out of what I consider the three basic lenses that everyone should have -- those two plus the 70-200. With that combo plus maybe a macro for closeups and some long glass if you do sports or wildlife you can shoot virtually anything.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Craig - I'm not sure about your "basic lenses" (but if you're offering to fill in my range, please do, otherwise Nikon's three main f/2.8 pro zooms aren't what I'd call "basic") or the ease of focus question, but I absolutely agree with the conclusion: trying to combine a teleconverter with an ultrawide is going to be unpleasant. Nikon teleconverters won't even mount (you can't even teleconvert the 24-70), and the quality of third party teleconverters is considered relatively dubious - but you're also paying a lot to do something a $200 50mm prime could do better.<br />

<br />

Daniel - the 24-70 is a lovely lens, but you're paying a lot of money for top-notch full-frame performance. Unless you're planning to switch to an FX camera at some point, are you sure you want this over one of the DX zooms? What lenses do you have at the moment? From the description of what you shoot, I'm not sure how necessary f/2.8 will be to you - and again you can save a lot of money with a moderate drop in quality by losing a bit of aperture, and possibly using a tripod.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It's even worse... most wide angles have a rear element very very close to the mount. All TCs have a front element very close to the side where you mount the lens. So, you're going to destroy either lens or TC, or both.<br /> Do not look at TCs as some "free" (well cheap) lunch to make your lenses more versatile. Apart from image quality issues, a drop in aperture (12-24 f/4 + TC2x = 24-48 f/8!!), placing a TC takes more time than switching a lens. It's not a convenient solution, even if it would work.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is an excellent lens, but heavy, big and expensive. What is the need to upgrade? If you feel a 24-48 f/8 lens would have done the trick as well as a 24-70 f/2.8, then you may want to consider that the simple 18-55VR kitlens is faster than f/8, will perform better than the TC solution would, and is much cheaper than both TC and the lens. Maybe the 24-70 is the best course of action, but a 35 f/1.8 for $200 can do a lot too...<br /> So, why are you looking to upgrade, which lenses do you currently have and in which respects specifically do they fail you? What are the added features you are looking for?</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I'll also advise forgetting about using a TC on a WA lens too. Even if it fit, the results wouldn't be much good, never mind the dimmer viewfinder from losing a couple of stops of light and a few other annoyances.</p>

<p>For the money, I'd grab a D7000 kit with the 18-105mm lens (for less than the cost of a new 24-70 f/2.8G) and also get a 12-24 or 10-24 DX zoom. Then you could either keep the D80 as a backup body or sell it. The 18-105 is pretty good when stopped down for landscapes and versatile enough for events, and the D7000 body will give you enough usable high-ISO image quality that you wouldn't really be hurt by the variable aperture, especially if you can process for any noise reduction at all in post.</p>

[danielsimionescu]

<p>With the teleconverter, I got the point: I wont take it, at least not now.<br>

<strong>Andrew Gillis:</strong> I love the 12-24, but as far as I know, Nikon discontinued it (it's still a mystery to me why) and people seems to love so much, that they don't sell it (e.g. I looked for it at Adorama and I couldn't find it).<br>

<strong>Andrew Garrard</strong>: Yes, as a long shot, I'm planning to switch to FX. IMO the DX is a "digital compromise", at least for DSLR cameras and it will disappear at some point. Plus that the FX has a clear advantage when it's about the wide lens (no crop factor). About lenses, I learned from experience that the top notch lenses are - beside their razor sharp quality - a good investment. I paid (I think it was four years ago) 1100$ for a D80 and 600$ for a Nikkor 24-85/2.8-4 lens. Now the D80 worth's 3-400$ if you're lucky and the lens is around 400$ (used).<br>

<strong>Wouter Willemse</strong>: I'm planning to build a set of "good to best" lenses with a range from 12 to 200mm. My "dream team" would be Nikkor 12-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and of course 70-200/2.8. That's the dream. The need (here and now :) is a wide lens and I would go for 12-24 if I find it. The way I think is to buy a set of lenses and keep it. To me lenses and cameras (the digitals) are like water and stones: "A Stones will remain for ever while water passes" (it's a Romanian proverb I like).<br>

<strong>D.B. Cooper</strong>: The D7000 it tempts me, but as I said I would rather wait and take an FX. Till then, I get the lenses.<br>

Thank you all for your inputs. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>I think building an FX zoom lens set for a DX camera is a mistake. The 24-70, for instance, might drive you crazy as a walk-around lens on DX, because it's first of all really heavy for the DX bodies, and second of all it's just not wide enough for most of us at the wide end. ymmv, but the 24-70 would drive me crazy on my D90.</p>

<p>I'd suggest building a kit consisting of the ultra-wide (maybe... not everybody even needs this. I love my Tokina 11-16 but use it very seldom... btw it is an AWESOME lens for interiors), perhaps the Nikon 10-24 that basically replaced the 12-24 f4 (get it used if you can)... then a mid-range zoom like the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (you seem to want to buy the high-end stuff), but buy that used and you may be able to sell it for pretty much what you pay for it, and the 70-200 which will work great on both (a little nicer on DX... the crop factor really helps there).</p>

<p>Then when you upgrade to FX, sell the ultrawide zoom and the standard zoom and put that money towards the new lenses, and keep the 70-200.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Peter is 100% right. Getting the best lenses is not a bad idea, but the consideration should be more than just "regarded the best"; it should fit <em>your </em>uses. Like Peter, switching at 24mm would have me growing slighty mad at times (and when it doesn't, I'm using primes).<br /> The other thing is the extra you pay for a 24-70, financially, weight, size. I am sure it's a great lens, capable of great results. It's just also really big and heavy. Since you list landscapes as your main subject: I think a near-ideal landscape lens is the 16-85VR lens. Ideal range, very sharp. Quite light and compact, so no problem for hiking around. Slow aperture, but for landscapes that's hardly a problem. A f/2.8 lens is not that much of an advantage for landscapes.<br /> So rather than buying this 'dream team', consider <em>your </em>uses, and then match <em>your </em>wishlist.This also goes for 'wanting to go to FX' - consider how much benefit this REALLY brings to your photography. I'd like a D700 too, but fact is: it'll bring near nothing to my photography that my D300 does not already do. So, desirable, but not the logical step by any means.</p>

<p>For the wide angle, which lens are you looking for? The Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX, or the 14-24 f/2.8? The first one is good, but most alternatives are about as good (Tokina, Nikon 10-24, Sigma), widely available and cheaper. The 14-24 f/2.8 is not that very wide at all on DX (and HUGE). Not the best choice on DX at all, I think.</p>

<p>Aside note: I do not believe DX will eventually be dead. There is too much installed base, and at present, APS-C (DX) outsells Full Frame about 95:5. So, DX will be around for some serious time to come. I would never ever take it into consideration for my purchases today.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>To me it is quite un-needed to get a WA adaptor when there is the option of stitching multiple frames. If it is essential that you get the wide view at a single point in time then a wide-angle lens is needed but for many things it is not, and if you do the stitch in editng rather than a stitch programme you don't need to bother too much about some subject movement in and between frames. But it can take editing time and this may not be available to you.</p>

<p>I also think that adaptors are 'old technology' designed for when 2x and 3x zooms were what was available ... but these days there are the tools to do it with a single lens ... exception being when you add a tele-adaptor to an already long lens. But there we are talking about bridge camera potentials not DSLRs where the camera glass is bigger and doesn't match adaptors. From simple tests with WA adaptors I came to the conclusion that the extra angle of view wasn't worth the degradation of the image when one can maintain and improve IQ with stitching, resolution anyway ... this back in the days of 3Mp cameras but the principle remains the same I think.</p>

<p>So stitching and tele-converters rather than adaptors is probably the way to go for a DSLR owner.</p>

[danielsimionescu]

<p>After reading your inputs and some digging on the net, I realized that the Tokina 11-16 would be a good choice for me. I'm not 100% sure about that (the 11-16 zoom is to short to be called zoom) but hopefully will do the job.<br>

@Wouter: Thank you to (almost) making me reconsider the DX system. About DX vs FX ... that's another topic, another research :)<br>

Thanks all!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Daniel, the Tokina is really great. You definitely want to check it out.</p>

<p>If I was buying today, I'd be sorely tempted by the 8-16, though...</p>

[danielsimionescu]

<p>@ Peter, about the 8-16: Come on, I'm trying to narrow the search, not to wide it :) Luckily for me, I have an issue with "filterless" lenses... So, Tokina 11-16 ... sold!<br />... how about Tokina 12-24/f4 ;) ?</p>