Nikon D70 wide angle lens choice

Hi



I've been considering a new lens for architectural & landscape work -
amateur stuff nothing pro. The link to my site below will give you an idea
of my abilities and what I like to photograph if you're interested. I'm in
the UK BTW.



Have been looking at the Nikon 12-24 f4 G AF-S DX but this really seems to
get mixed reviews. I've been talking to a guy in a local camera shop who
recommends the Sigma 12 - 24 mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM I think he said the
distortion on the Sigma was less but there was more CA. I'd be glad of less
distortion for architectural shots and IIRC CA can be corrected to an extent
in Photoshop.



Anyone have any particular views? The Sigma is about half the price of the
Nikon so with the difference I'm 2/3rds-ish the way to a 18-200vr or get a
50mm f1.4 or a macro lens to play with and still have change for a beer :-)



Thanks for any help



Tim
--
http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/

Tim wrote:

Anyone have any particular views? The Sigma is about half the price of the
Nikon so with the difference I'm 2/3rds-ish the way to a 18-200vr or get a
50mm f1.4 or a macro lens to play with and still have change for a beer :-)

Also take a look at the Tokina 12-24, even cheaper @ £339 ! As for
suitablity, go and try one at the dealers...

Tim wrote:
Hi



I've been considering a new lens for architectural & landscape work -
amateur stuff nothing pro. The link to my site below will give you an idea
of my abilities and what I like to photograph if you're interested. I'm in
the UK BTW.



Have been looking at the Nikon 12-24 f4 G AF-S DX but this really seems to
get mixed reviews. I've been talking to a guy in a local camera shop who
recommends the Sigma 12 - 24 mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM I think he said the
distortion on the Sigma was less but there was more CA. I'd be glad of less
distortion for architectural shots and IIRC CA can be corrected to an extent
in Photoshop.



Anyone have any particular views? The Sigma is about half the price of the
Nikon so with the difference I'm 2/3rds-ish the way to a 18-200vr or get a
50mm f1.4 or a macro lens to play with and still have change for a beer :-)


All of the w/a lenses will have enough barrel or pincushion distortion
to sometimes cause problems with straight lines. They also have complex
pattern distortions (moustache pattern) that aren't able to be simply
corrected in photoshop. However, there is an excellent program "PTLens"
(available as a stand-alone or photoshop plug-in) corrects any
distortion with these lenses quickly and automatically. (The program
reads exif data, and applies correction from a database based on camera
type and lens focal length setting) Cost is about US$10 - a free
trialware version can be downloaded.
IMO distortion is easier to deal with than CA.
My suggestion would be to look at:
Sigma 10-20 - sharp with very low CA - plus 10mm is quite a bit wider
than 12mm.
Tokina 12-24 - sharp but higher CA than Nikkor or Sigma, but lowest
distortion.

The Sigma 12-24 has a very bulbous protruding front element - and you
can't fit a filter in front for protection. It's designed for 35mm
frame size - a great special purpose lens for that, but outdone on DX
sensor by the Nikkor, Sigma 10-20, and Tokina 12-24.

You read reports of "sample variation" with all of these lenses,
including the Nikkor, as tolerances are critical. Typical reports are
of softness on one side of the image. If you are fussy about such
things, then I suggest you buy only where replacement is easy, or check
out the lens in a shop for obvious softness in one side of the image
with test shots before buying it.

"frederick" wrote in message news:1167248597.785773@ftpsrv1...
Tim wrote:

I've been considering a new lens for architectural & landscape work - amateur stuff nothing pro. The link to my site below will
give you an idea of my abilities and what I like to photograph if you're interested. I'm in the UK BTW.
Have been looking at the Nikon 12-24 f4 G AF-S DX but this really seems to get mixed reviews. I've been talking to a guy in a
local camera shop who recommends the Sigma 12 - 24 mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM I think he said the distortion on the Sigma was less but
there was more CA. I'd be glad of less distortion for architectural shots and IIRC CA can be corrected to an extent in Photoshop.
Anyone have any particular views? The Sigma is about half the price of the Nikon so with the difference I'm 2/3rds-ish the way
to a 18-200vr or get a 50mm f1.4 or a macro lens to play with and still have change for a beer :-)

All of the w/a lenses will have enough barrel or pincushion distortion to sometimes cause problems with straight lines. They also
have complex pattern distortions (moustache pattern) that aren't able to be simply corrected in photoshop. However, there is an
excellent program "PTLens" (available as a stand-alone or photoshop plug-in) corrects any distortion with these lenses quickly and
automatically. (The program reads exif data, and applies correction from a database based on camera type and lens focal length
setting) Cost is about US$10 - a free trialware version can be downloaded.
IMO distortion is easier to deal with than CA.
My suggestion would be to look at:
Sigma 10-20 - sharp with very low CA - plus 10mm is quite a bit wider than 12mm.
Tokina 12-24 - sharp but higher CA than Nikkor or Sigma, but lowest distortion.

The Sigma 12-24 has a very bulbous protruding front element - and you can't fit a filter in front for protection. It's designed
for 35mm frame size - a great special purpose lens for that, but outdone on DX sensor by the Nikkor, Sigma 10-20, and Tokina
12-24.

You read reports of "sample variation" with all of these lenses, including the Nikkor, as tolerances are critical. Typical
reports are of softness on one side of the image. If you are fussy about such things, then I suggest you buy only where
replacement is easy, or check out the lens in a shop for obvious softness in one side of the image with test shots before buying
it.

I agree completely with the above - and unfortunately there
is no clear "buy this one" choice for WAs, since they are all
compromises. Guaranteed a good sample, I would slightly
prefer the Nikkor, but its price is the highest. The worst
performer on DX was the 12-24 Sigma, as you pointed
out - and it is more expensive than the Sigma 10-20 and
Tokina (but the Sigma is considerably wider - but with
strong illumination roll-off toward the corners). And, why
waste money on an expensive lens without doing basic
checks to see if it suffers from the common unequal opposite
edge or corner sharpness problem? Return the lens for
exchange while you can rather than being bothered by
softness (even if slight) in one part of the image that is
always there in the same place. (In redundant words, I'm
agreeing with the last poster...! ;-) For the OP, I'd consider
the inexpensive but excellent 50mm f1.8 instead of the 1.4
(as good, but far cheaper, and with less linear distortion),
and probably the 18-70 instead of the 18-200 (more likely
to get a good sample of a lens that is likely at least somewhat
better and certainly much cheaper). And excellent Nikkor
achromats are about $40 and available in 52mm size
suitable for the 50 (or zoom, with step-down ring). Results
can be very good at f8-11 for macro work
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

"Tim" no wrote in message
.uk...

Hi



I've been considering a new lens for architectural & landscape work - ...

I've got the Nikkor 12-24 which I quite like, but in some ways I'd prefer a
wide angle prime. The 14/2.8 is on my wish list at £783 (1.5x the cost of
the zoom!), which would suit me pretty well as I like doing interiors so 2.8
would really help over the f4 of the zoom. I have heard the tokina is good
stopped down for landscape, but interiors possibly not so good as you'd
likely be shooting wide open unless you are using a tripod. Have you
looked at the 10.5/2.8 DX fish @ £400? I have heard quite a lot of good
reports about it and some people hate taking it off their camera as they say
it's such fun.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

In article ,
"Tim" no wrote:

You may want to also check out the 11-18 mm Tamron 4.5-5.6
I am rather happy with it.

--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:34:06 -0500, Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

In article ,
"Tim" no wrote:

You may want to also check out the 11-18 mm Tamron 4.5-5.6
I am rather happy with it.

FWIW, Tokina has recently announced a 10-17 that the claim is a fisheye--I
haven't seen one or any reports on it so that's all I know about it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:34:34 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "badger.badger"
wrote:

Tim wrote:

Anyone have any particular views? The Sigma is about half the price
of the Nikon so with the difference I'm 2/3rds-ish the way to a
18-200vr or get a 50mm f1.4 or a macro lens to play with and still
have change for a beer :-)

Also take a look at the Tokina 12-24, even cheaper @ £339 ! As for
suitablity, go and try one at the dealers...

I'm happy with this lens on a D70 and a D200. AF vs AF-S for the
Nikon, but imo the difference is worth the additional $$. Some photos
taken with it:
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...25-02_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._1962_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._1969_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._1987_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._2190_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...13-01_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...16-01_800.html

Hi Ed
Thanks for the links
Can you just clarify what lens you were using, the way you worded the reply
I can't tell which one. From the comment about the extra $ being worth it
you could mean the Nikon or the Sigma.

Best regards

Tim

--
http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:34:06 -0500, Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

In article ,
"Tim" no wrote:

You may want to also check out the 11-18 mm Tamron 4.5-5.6
I am rather happy with it.

FWIW, Tokina has recently announced a 10-17 that the claim is a
fisheye--I haven't seen one or any reports on it so that's all I know
about it.

Thank you for all the replies. They're much appreciated

At the moment I'm tempted by the Sigma 10-20 that Frederick mentioned on the
basis that I'll probably be glad of the extra 2mm and from the pictures I've
seen the distortion doesn't seem to be particularly worse in real life
shots. I don't think I'd be happy with a wide prime as I think that could
involve a lot of foot zooming but I will have a think about it.

Best regards

Tim
--
http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:17:36 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tim" no
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:17:40 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Ed Ruf
(REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" wrote: I'm happy
with this lens on a D70 and a D200. AF vs AF-S for the
Nikon, but imo the difference is worth the additional $$. Some
photos
taken with it:
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...25-02_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._1962_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._1969_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._1987_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog..._2190_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...13-01_800.html
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...16-01_800.html

Hi Ed
Thanks for the links
Can you just clarify what lens you were using, the way you worded
the reply I can't tell which one. From the comment about the extra $
being worth it you could mean the Nikon or the Sigma.

These are taken with the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. This is an AF lens, vs
the similar though AF-S Nikon. So without the builtin motor the
Tokina lens might focus a bit slower than the Nikon, though I have no
direct experience comparing them. At least for me this isn't an issue
given the subject matter I use this lens for.

Should have said imo the additional $$ isn't worth it for the AF-S
Nikon, at least for me. In an older thread months ago some else
commented the distortion of the Sigma was worse than that seen in my
uncorrected shots links above, particularly for example:
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...25-02_800.html

Thanks for the quick reply Ed
I think it's a toss up between the Tokina and the Sigma, The Nikon just
doesn't seem to have anything to offer that's worth an additional £400
approx.
As I said in a post below I'm tempted by the Sigma for the extra 2mm but my
camera shop will be getting the Sigma & Tokina lenses in stock after the
break so I'll go and have a play
Below is a link to some Sigma test images, distortion wise I think I could
live with that
http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/sigma1020test

Thank you for your help

Tim
--
http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/