Wideangle: 12-24 f4, or 14-24 f2.8 == Is the 2.8 worth it?

Phoenix

Remember the 12-24 is a DX lens. and the 14-24 is an FX lens. The quality of the 14-24 seams to be fantastic but it is an unwieldy monster. I am very happy with my 12-24. f4 or f2.8 is not much of a deal for me on a wide angle. Inside you can use a lower shutter speed than a longer lens. All my long lenses though are f2.8. Got rid of my sigma 10-20. The irregularity of the distortion was not corrected in software.

Edmond

depends. 12-24 Nikon and Tokina f/4s are DX only. 14-24 works best on FX. you can put one on a DX body, but since it's not actually that wide (21mm) in that format, you'd be better off with a sigma 10-20 or tokina 11-16 if you want w-i-d-e.

the 14-24 is worth it if a) you can afford it; b) you shoot with a d3 or d700; or c) you're mainly using it for indoor use (it wont accept filters). the 14-24's IQ is better than any of its competitors, but it may well outresolve DX sensors, so to get the most out of it, you need to use it on an FX body.

your other question, is 2.8 on a wide-angle worth it? depends on what you shoot. if i didnt already have the tokina 12- 24, i'd probably scoop up the 11-16 for low-light indoor stuff like concerts. but for outdoorsy landscape stuff, which is how i typically use the tokina, i generally stop down the lens to f/8-f/11 or thereabouts. i also find the long end of that range useful for people shots -- both the nikon and tokina 12-24 are sharpest from 18-24--whereas on an 11-16, the longest focal length is still a bit wide for people pics most of the time, unless you're doing a wide group shot.

so i guess the bottom line is how you prioritize range, max. aperture, and body compatibility. i'm sure cost factors in there somewhere too. and on that note, you don't lose much if anything by going with the tokina 12-24 over the nikon, unless you have a d40 or d60, in which case you wont be able to AF. but in terms of image quality, they're practically the same lens.

Edmond...I was just talking today with my buddy who got the 10 by 20...I wont say he hates it now but he does not like it...The distortion kills the lens is what he's told me...I remember when he first got it and how jazzed he was about it...Not so much now...

I loved the Sigma 10-20mm but I loved the Nikon 10.5mm DX better, and sold the Sigma. The slow aperture at 20mm, f5.6, did not impress me. I am interested in the new Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 and will be interested to see reviews when it becomes available.

I should add that the optical performance of the Sigma 10-20mm is outstanding and every bit as good as the Tokina 12-24mm in my experience.

hmm, i'm still jazzed on the 12-24. i've started using it more for events where i know there will be large groups of people, like this cannabis expo yesterday in sf...

Could you get the same coverage of content with a fisheye 10.5, defished using the hemi plugin for CS3 or something? Is the 10.5 sharp too?

ps dave, don't know if i would agree... the tokina kinda smokes the sigma at the long end. the sigma was optimized to shoot best at 10mm, but i think the tokina is better from 15mm on out. the problem is there's a lot of distortion at 10mm. not that i havent seen good shots with the sigma from people who know what they're doing.but i think the overall consensus is the tokina has more consistent and therefore better IQ.

phoenix: yes, you can defish the 10.5 in capture NX. the 10.5 is one of nikon's sharpest lenses.

The problem with defishing the 10.5 is that you'll lose details in the corners, as those parts of the image have to be stretched to resemble corners of a rectilinear image.

Yes, it seems I may lose the corners, but I saw a comparison of a defished 10.5, the Tokina 11-16, and the Nikon 12-24. Looks like the 10.5 grabbed most of the landscape. Shucks, the more one goes into lenses the more one wishes to buy!!!

I own the 14-24 & I love it. Once I'd held it in my hands I could just not get the lens out of my mind. I was lucky - - I got it on AMX points. :-D I use it on my D300 & love it. If I need wider I have the 10,5 Fisheye & I have to tell you.... With my present lens set up I feel set. I may sell off a few I now consider wasted in my set up - - but, I have lenses I'm sure I'll hold on to for a very long time.

When people say the 14-24 is not wide enough on the D300 I say - - it really comes down to how you shoot. For me - - It fits me like a glove.

Good luck in your choice - - I know it's a hard one.

Lil :-)

Let me just clear up something. From someone who has the 12-24mm (now sold), 14-24mm, D300 and D700.

The 14-24mm on DX is VERY wide (and quite spectacular), though not ULTRA wide. On FX, it is ULTRA ULTRA wide that few would ever need, and it's a challenging endeavor to shoot properly at 14mm. (12mm on DX is considered ULTRA wide - but sacrifices IQ compared to the 14-24)

Since wide is my living (interiors/architecture), I do always have both cameras and the 17-35mm with me. I love the 14- 24mm on the D300 and the 17-35mm on the D700 when i need crazy wide or ISO over 1000. I realize that not everyone needs to invest in that setup so choose your lenses wisely - only you know what you really need.

Bottom line is that the 14-24mm is worth it - on either DX or FX. But you're getting a lot more than just 2.8. I usually shoot between f/7.1 and f/10, but you can shoot this at f/2.8 to isolate a subject in the foreground nicely.

I owned the 12-24DX before and sold it after getting the D3 and the 14-24FX. For me it wasn't the question whether the 14-24 wasn't wide enough for DX, it was the overall image quality that counted in conjunction with the need for not carrying two wide-angle zooms for two formats on travels (I use D3 together with D2x and D200). Since I mostly used the 12-24 in the 20-24mm end, the sacrifice was a no-brainer. Of course, getting an extra stop worth is a bonus and means you can to some extent isolate a close subject.

My hunch is that you'll be fine with a 12-24mm f4 for your DX body (or lens offering equivalent angle of view at same or lesser price a la third party mnfr). Regardless of financial wherewithal, the $ difference between a 14-24/2.8 and any other lens would likely find a better use elsewhere; flash, tripod/ballhead/quick-release bracket and plate, another lens (10.5), etc. I also find the 14-24 to be underutilized on a DX body...lots of expensive image projected into a black hole.

No doubt you're not a rookie but I'd have to conclude you would have a very good and fairly compelling reason to justify the 14-24 before posting your inquiry, among them superb image quality (but assuming FX format) and the ability to isolate a near subject as noted above. (Awhile back my suggestion of isolating a close subject using a wide-angle was harshly poo-pooed by a wise-guy.)

I shoot a Nikon 12-24/4. I’m not crazy about the IQ at f4. Yet the combo of 2.8 and excellent IQ in a broad sense (edge-to-edge and fall-off in particular) is enticing. I use a 17-35/2.8 on film bodies and much prefer that focal range to 14-24 on FX format. And yes, the 10.5 delivers very nice IQ and is especially fun to shoot. Enjoy.

Also consider the excellent Tokina 11-16 f2.8. EASY to correct distortion (although I haven't felt the need to bother correcting it with any photos I've taken with it yet).

Phoenix writes [Yes, it seems I may lose the corners, but I saw a comparison of a defished 10.5, the Tokina 11-16, and the Nikon 12-24. Looks like the 10.5 grabbed most of the landscape. Shucks, the more one goes into lenses the more one wishes to buy!!!]

Two problems, one is that you can't really compose the photograph with the 10.5 when you shoot, you're just guessing at how it will look when you de-fish it. So it's hit or miss. I wouldn't be satisfied with that.

Second, the point of a lens this wide is not to "grab most of the landscape", in fact, you will often take the most boring photos possible that way. Much better is to use an ultra-wide to point out something just a few inches in front of you, contrasted with the landscape. In short, "getting it all in" isn't the thing that a lens that wide does best. Also, too many photos I've taken, even at 18mm or 24mm, where I've "gotten it all in" have ended up being the boring ones I don't even look at.

I have the Nikon 14-24f2.8. It's a big momma. I had to start doing wrist curls to be able to hold and shoot with one hand. But, I love it. I think it is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I would disagree with the notion that if one can afford the lens, that person is probably a good photographer. I make a jillion mistakes when I am out taking pictures. It's fun to keep trying though.

I just wanted to contribute a couple of samples from my Sigma which I think is a fantastic lens if you are DX bound and do want to get ultra wide. I think the IQ has been great with perfect colors.

Both of the Nikon lenses give great IQ but I have not owned them and cannot comment on them, really. Also the Tokina is supposed to be build like a tank and gives great IQ. For the price, though, the only way to get down to 15 mm equivalent on DX is with the Sigma.

Pick your poison and happy shooting!

Cheers,

Jay

I just wanted to contribute a couple of samples from my Sigma which I think is a fantastic lens if you are DX bound and do want to get ultra wide. The links to them are at the bottom. I think the IQ has been great with perfect colors.

Both of the Nikon lenses give great IQ but I have not owned them and cannot comment on them, really. Also the Tokina is supposed to be build like a tank and gives great IQ. For the price, though, the only way to get down to 15 mm equivalent on DX is with the Sigma.

Pick your poison and happy shooting!

Cheers,

Jay

Taken at 12mm: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7306432

Taken at 12-14mm and cropped slightly: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7321902

Taken at 10mm with almost no postproduction: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7335179

Taken at 10 mm with mild perspective correction in PS and crop, obvious selective color desaturation: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7375071&size=lg

I wouldn't say the Sigma 10-20mm is bad at 20mm at all. In fact all the photos I took with it were sharp corner to corner. Here are a few examples all taken at 20mm with the D300:

my two cents on the tokina 11-16: i've had one for a week now and love it so far. you get ultrawide range, f/2.8, and outstanding IQ. the only sacrifice is, of course, the limited zoom range, but i've found i'm using the 11-16 range a lot, and i just switch to my nikon 16-85 when i need to.

i've shot a lot in the past year with a sigma 15-30mm, and ended up feeling that it wasn't wide enough; i would want wider than 14mm on a dx body. of course, this may not be the case for you. .

I find this new-found interest in ultra-wides interesting. 10 years ago, 20mm was at the fringe of what people considered a useable focal length on 35mm film. I understand the DX sensor conversion issue, and all. Still there is an 'ultra-wide revival of sorts going on...

BTW, I get my Nikon 14-24 on Thursday. I pray it's a sharp sample.

I have the 14-24, but certainly not because I'm a better photographer!

The astonishing thing about this lens is that even at 2.8, and even at the edges and in the corners, the image quality is very good indeed. I had the 17-35 for a short time before this lens (see an earlier thread) and the 14-24 beats it hands down. Its ability to control flare defies belief.

To be able to shoot at 2.8 is always useful, and provided you can live with the physical size I'd say it's worth every penny. To be able to shoot at 2.8 and at 14mm without noticeable loss of image quality is something I didn't think was possible until I got this lens.

hey dave, i never said the sigma was "bad at 20mm." it's just that the tokina and nikon 12-24s are generally regarded as sharper from 15mm on. (one indisputable issue, though, is that you've got to stop down more to get corner to corner sharpness with the sigma, since it's f/5.6 at 20mm, making it one of the slowest, dimmest lenses around at that FL. in good light, shooting still subjects with a tripod that's not an issue, but for handheld people shots, a faster lens would obviously be preferable).

the main reason to get the sigma is for shooting at 10mm, which no other current DX lens will do. (until the tamron 10-24 comes out) however. if you shoot more or as much at the longer end, i would get either the nikon or the tokina 12-24 (with a DX body). and if i was buying today, and wanted wide, i might forgo the extra 1mm of the sigma for the 2.8 of the tokina 11-16, just because that fits my shooting style more and allows for greater versatility in low-light situations. YMMV, and again, nothing against the sigma, in capable hands it's a credible performer. but i do find the comments about the slow aperture and distortion issues illuminating, you never hear that about the other w/a zooms.

ps jay, i like the park avenue south 2 shot. obviously, you've got the sigma dialed!

Eric, I had the Tokina 12-24mm and loved it. It never went quite wide enough for me though, which is why I sold it. I bought a used Tokina 17mm f3.5 manual focus lens back in 1995. It was my first ultra wide angle lens. I loved it! The reason I sold the Sigma 10-20mm was the f5.6 at the long end, and also because for ultra wide I just prefer the look of the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye:

Cockpit of Comet 4C at Museum of Flight Restoration Center, Everett, WA

Prototype and First Production Model Boeing 727, and Comet 4C, Museum of Flight Restoration Center, Everett, WA

> phoenix: yes, you can defish the 10.5 in capture NX. the 10.5 is one of nikon's sharpest lenses.

I disagree, the 10.5 (at least my sample) isn't a particularly sharp lens, I suspect it's in fact one of Nikon's least sharp primes. I have tree wide angle lenses; the 10.5mm fisheye, a Tokina 12-24 and Nikon's 20mm f/2.8D. The Tokina is sharper than both the 10.5mm and the 20mm f/2.8, which has a reputation for being 'soft' on digital bodies. Still, there's more to image quality than sharpness alone and the 10.5 and 20/2.8 both are much more resistant to flare and ghosting than the 12-24. Contrast of especially the 10.5 is very high, which may contribute to the impression of sharpness. Colors really pop with the 10.5, and they do so to a lesser extend with the 20/2.8. The Tokina still has sufficient contrast, it's just that it can't keep up with the 10.5 and 20/2.8 in this respect. As far as image quality goes; I would rate the 20/2.8 first, because it has the least amount of optical issues, followed by the 10.5, and the Tokina.

Sounds like you had a bad sample, Frank. My Nikon 10.5mm was noticeably sharper than my Sigma 10-20mm at 10mm. It was a pretty dramatic difference, and I didn't feel at all that the Sigma was not a sharp lens either.