advertisement


Wide angled Nikon Lens

B

Bosh

pfm Member
Having used an 18-105dx kit lens on a D7000 for a while I wanted to investigate some better lens. Tried the 16-85dx but was surprised to find it less sharp and had more chromatic aberration than the 18-105, so am going to try a 24-85fx (d600 kit version)

However my other thought was a 16-35fx to cover the wide end and then perhaps a 50mm to fill the gap to my 70-300 lens, however although this gets excellent reviews Rockwell says the cheaper 10-24dx gives better results on a DX camera

I was looking at fx lens to future proof my choice. Is this just a quirk of the 16-35 or is it a case of dx lens always being better than fx ones on a dx sensor camera?

Any other suggestions?
 
The Nikon 16-35mm f4 G AF-S ED VR lens is superb. The only flaw is that the thing suffers from both Barrel and Pincushion distortion so you have to either use the in camera correction for lovely jpegs or post process the RAW images in something like NX2 to correct the abberations

If you're sticking to the DX format then the smart money would be on the
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM Lens - Nikon Fit or alternatively the cheaper one with variable maximum aperture.

So, if you're going the go FX - get the Nikon
If you're likely to stay DX and want to save money, get the Sigma
 
I would highly recommend the Tokina 11-16, why stick with nikon? I've just bought one for a D7100 and the picture quality is super.
 
Thanks for all the replies

I was going for a Nikon 16-35 until I read Rockwells advice that the 10-24dx gave better results, I am just a bit concerned as I have no intentions in the short term to go FX I dont want to be left with an expensive obsolete dx lens if full frame trickles down the range

I have read excellent reviews on the Tokina 12-28 which say it performs better than both Nikons for significantly less money and works on FX down to 18mm, whilst the Sigmas and Tamrons seem to get mixed reviews

The Samyang is an interesting option, perhaps not the 8mm as I would still net something to bridge the gap to the 24-84 but the 14mm would sit nicely
 
A quick note for you. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that I have on my Canon EOS 40D also fits my 35mm EOS 650. Maybe double check whether this is true for the Nikon version?

Full frame hasn't really trickled down very much in ten years. I think the cheapest is still the Canon EOS 6D, at over £1,200 in the shops.
 
Have a look at the last two issues of NPhoto. They have done a whole series of tests on all of these lenses. One issue was for DX the other was for full frame.
 
If you want to go really wide and have FF compatibility, the 12-24mm Sigma is good.

Keep in mind that it's not the fastest lens (rarely an issue with conventional wide angle applications), and 12mm is very wide with FF, which makes it a specialist tool.
 
Bosh said:
I was going for a Nikon 16-35 until I read Rockwells advice that the 10-24dx gave better results
Click to expand...

Not a big fan of Ken Rockwell. It's handy that he reviews all the Nikon gear, but some of his reports are pure fiction. For instance he recommends not using the Voigtlander 40mm Nokton classic on the Leica M type 240 because of the missing framelines - not really a problem with live view - its as though he cloned the review from when he used it on the Leica M9 and forgot that the newer Leica has live view.

So anyway, I'm not sure that Ken has actually tried 10-24 and 16-35 on both your D7000 and on a newer FX camera like the D610
 
You can use the Tokina 11 - 16 on FF, at 11mm you get a round picture but at 16mm it's fine. A small amount of cropping is all you need to fix photos 12mm to 15mm.

How about prime lenses? The Nikon you have now is pretty decent, a prime will show the most improvement.
 
Thanks for the advice.

I ruled the Samyang 8mm as a step too far from my 24-85 and the 14mm gets terrible reviews. I was almost sold on a Tokina until I read the Lentip.com and saw the horrendous flaring on all models even the latest multi-coated versions

So despite its lack of claimed lack of resolution I chose a nearly new Sigma 10-20 on the basis that it does nothing really badly, is better than the Tamron and half the price of a used Nikon 10-24

Proof of the pudding.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top