Best Ultra wide angle lens dx

A

aroy

Senior Member
II still think that FX bodies are best for wide angles. f you shoot a lot of wide angles, then it may be a good idea to invest in an FX body. Then most of the lower cost wides can be used.

If you are going to Nepal, it will be best to travel light, and that is where the older AIS wides on a D610 body will shine.
 
M

moony16

Senior Member
dukatum said:
GAS....... :) Has been a really interesting thread to read. I have spent the last few days looking over the vast range of wide angles for my D7000, and like what was previously said, the DX sensor is at a disadvantage here. Ideally I wouldn't buy a DX lens because one day my intention is to buy a FX camera, but when this is I don't know and eventually I'll just sell the one DX lens I have I guess. I hadn't considered Tokina before, for some reason I thought they didn't have auto focus so stayed away, but I was wrong. Researching the Tokina 11-16 (Comparable DX Focal Length: 16.5 - 24 mm) that was mentioned near the start, this will be as close to ideal as I can get and in my price range. The f/2.8 is an important factor for me as I plan to take it with me to Nepal, and think it could be good for the small streets with incredible buildings (less space for light), and inside what I imagine might be fairly low light buildings. and then eventually when hiking I hope to make some nice landscapes. Also I like the fact the Tokina has a 77mm Filter which is the same as 24-70 and 70-200 part of the trinity. Would be interested in anyones thoughts if they have done similar destinations and if this lens is a good size for APS-C or maybe need to step up closer to 35mm? EDIT: Oh Foo, try Panamoz for the lens. They'll be grey imports but offer their own warranty (basically send it back to manufacture themselves) and are the cheapest I ever found in UK before I moved. All my camera and lenses are from the likes of here or DigitalRev and never had a problem. Infact my D7000 had oil on the sensor and Nikon took it in and repaired it for free for me.
Click to expand...
You are not talking wide angle; rather, you are talking Ultra Wide angle when you talk 11-16mm, even on APS-c sensor. IMO, UWA glass is not the best choice for landscapes. UWAs do best in tight spaces, like indoors. I find the focal range of 28mm through 40mm (Fx sensor) to be most helpful, with 35mm best. Of course, you can do landscapes with any focal length, but I'm talking most useful here. Also, UWA is a very difficult FOV with which to compose, unless you are experienced. You can get any AOV on APS-c as you can get on Fx these days--ironically, may be more choices for Dx for affordable, good UWA glass. For example, Sigma has the 8-16mm for Dx & the 12-24, for Fx--they provide same AOV on their respective sensors. If you really need low light for Nepal, grab a 16-18ish to 50-55ish constant f/2.8 zoom. You have many quality choices in the range, precisely because the range is in demand. 17-50 Tamron 17-50 Sigma 17-50 Tokina and so on.................... Cheers jt
 
D

dukatum

Senior Member
moony16 said:
You are not talking wide angle; rather, you are talking Ultra Wide angle when you talk 11-16mm, even on APS-c sensor. IMO, UWA glass is not the best choice for landscapes. UWAs do best in tight spaces, like indoors. I find the focal range of 28mm through 40mm (Fx sensor) to be most helpful, with 35mm best. Of course, you can do landscapes with any focal length, but I'm talking most useful here. Also, UWA is a very difficult FOV with which to compose, unless you are experienced. You can get any AOV on APS-c as you can get on Fx these days--ironically, may be more choices for Dx for affordable, good UWA glass. For example, Sigma has the 8-16mm for Dx & the 12-24, for Fx--they provide same AOV on their respective sensors. If you really need low light for Nepal, grab a 16-18ish to 50-55ish constant f/2.8 zoom. You have many quality choices in the range, precisely because the range is in demand. 17-50 Tamron 17-50 Sigma 17-50 Tokina and so on.................... Cheers jt
Click to expand...

Thanks @moony16, I'll be giving it some more thought as I don't leave until the last quarter of the year which will give me some time to get use to any new lens I buy before we head off on our adventure.
 
F

Felisek

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
The Sigma 10-20mm bested the Tamron 10-24mm on every point according to DXO Mark, though not by a lot.
Click to expand...

You used Sigma f3.5 in your comparison, I was rather thinking of Sigma f4-5.6, as it seems more comparable to the Tamron. Sigma f4-5.6 gives worse marks than the Tamron. The f3.5 is better, but also more expensive.

DXO marks are great for comparison, but nothing really beats personal experience. Can people who own Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 say anything about it?
 
A

Alansin

Senior Member
Im wondering if any of the lenses mentioned above, have barrel distrotion like a fish eye, or they do / try to do theyre best to remain not fish eye and still give you a very wide view...

any experiences?
 
P

PapaST

Senior Member
Alansin said:
Im wondering if any of the lenses mentioned above, have barrel distrotion like a fish eye, or they do / try to do theyre best to remain not fish eye and still give you a very wide view...

any experiences?
Click to expand...

Fisheye lenses are a special type of wide angle lens. The above lenses try their best to give you a wide angle and stay true to life without distortion. How well they do that I'm not sure. It is possible to remove some if not all of the fisheye distortion if you wanted to.

Here is a shot with my fisheye 8mm Bower

BM7_4377 by BMalinis, on Flickr

Here's a different shot with some of the distortion removed. It really varies on how you aim/use the camera.

BM7_4669 by BMalinis, on Flickr
 
A

aroy

Senior Member
For static scenes, a stitched panorama is way ahead of the widest lens. Here is a group shot, stitched from 4 hand held shots

FSC_4670_stitch.jpg
 
Top