Ultra-Wide Angle Dilemma? DX & FX

P

PaulWog

New member
I want to get an ultra wide angle lens. I currently have a D5200 camera. I also want to upgrade to full frame eventually (ideally next year, but who knows with technology, the D620 might not offer the right stuff at the right price).

The only lens I've found so far that makes sense is the Tokina 11-16mm, which functions at 15 & 16mm on full frame. However, it's not offered locally around me, and I don't have focus fine tune on my D5200 if there's any issues.

Any input / suggestions? I have a 50mm 1.8G, 85m 1.8G, and 70-300 VR. I used to have a 35mm 1.8G, but it had focus issues. I'm not sure if I would be happy with 'embracing' DX for a few years to come, sticking with the D5200, getting a 35mm lens, and getting a DX-only ultra wide. I would like my lens purchases to be compatible with a move to FX (fully compatible). The huge problem here is that I basically have short telephoto to long telephoto lenses, and I'm not fully enjoying photography since I've crippled my focal range choices.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
You really do have a dilemma, there is no easy answer. Anything wide enough on Dx is going to be crippled on Fx. Normal "wide" Fx lenses are going to be "normal" on Dx. You can't have it both ways and any suggestions are going to be compromises one way or the other. If Fx is your ultimate goal, cut your losses now and move to Fx if you can.
 
P

pedroj

Senior Member
Hi and welcome...I have the FX 16-35mm F4 that I use on my D300..If I want wider then 16mm I do panoramas..

It's a great lens for what I use it for and how I use it...
 
Michael J.

Michael J.

Senior Member
I use the Nikon 16-85mm on my D5100. It does a great job. Tomorrow a friend of mine will borrow me his Sigma 10-20mm. If I think wid-angle suits to me, I will consider buying a wide angle. Just now I don't know will it be a Nikon, Tokina or Sigma.
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
I want a wide angle lens eventually, but I think I'll likely wait till I get a FX camera to go with my D300! I'll likely get a D700 which hopefully I'll be able to manage to save up enough money for!:D
 
P

PaulWog

New member
Such a dilemma, so much advice to consider. I like the 16-35mm suggestion, except for the price ($1200+ is about double my budget). I would absolutely love to own the lens.

Does anyone have thoughts on just biting the bullet and getting the 11-16mm Tokina, and hoping for a good copy?
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
PaulWog said:
Such a dilemma, so much advice to consider. I like the 16-35mm suggestion, except for the price ($1200+ is about double my budget). I would absolutely love to own the lens.

Does anyone have thoughts on just biting the bullet and getting the 11-16mm Tokina, and hoping for a good copy?
Click to expand...

Also consider the Tokina 12-24/f4. It is a great DX lens and it costs less than the 11-16. Additionally, the extra length makes it more useful.
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Personally, I can't wait till I can afford the Tokina 11-16. IMHO, this is THE only wide angle lens worth putting on a DX camera.

If you plan on going FX, plan on spending a pile more money on FX lenses...not to mention a more expensive FX camera. I don't see a dilemma here...I see a choice. :) It's one or the other, bud. Pick one. :)
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I just bought the 14-24 2.8 and posted the Tokina 11-16 for sale. Where in the world are you?

DSC_8703 s2.jpg
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
Now that would be great to find someone willing to sell me a lens I'm looking for on monthly payments! I know, wishful thinking on my part! Lol :D
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
My question is why go to FX? At the time I did it the D7100 did not exist and I wanted something that handled high ISO better. Whilst I now have a D800 I could quite happily get by with my D7100 (better AF the 600/610) and good DX glass. Everyone seems to think its a badge of progression but at the considerable extra cost including the lenses I'm not always convinced.

With regards to DX, the Tokina 11-16 is fantastic and we still have one. I suspect what may suit you is a sigma 17-50 2.8 as a good general lens that goes reasonably wide but not ultra wide. My wife just got one of these and it's not that expensive considering it's a 2.8. In my experience an ultra wide spends more time in the bag for most people, although when you need it nothing else will do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
P

PaulPosition

Senior Member
Well, noob here but anyway : it depends, I guess. If I was interested mostly in sports or birds I might want to stay with APS-C but if I take a liking to architecture, landscapes then I might wish for a 11mm lens that gives me 11mm-like field of view rather than 16 or 17...
 
P

PaulWog

New member
Thanks for all the responses. I've received some very good input, lots of great advice overall, and I've got a number of things to consider now.

I think I may very well go with the Tokina 11-16mm. In fact, the only thing holding me back is worries of lens variation / focus calibration. I'm not sure if I'll buy used or go new, I'll have to make a decision when I get around to it. I'll reconsider some of my other options which have been recommended to me.

To answer a couple other things: I think I want to go full frame because of how it changes my lens lineup. My 50mm becomes far more useful, and so does my 85mm. Yes, I could size down to smaller lenses, but there's definite trade-offs. There's that, and then there's also better ISO performance, better focusing, and the fact that moving from my D5200 I will get focus fine tune on a full frame. With that all said, it's a bit of a silly purchase at the moment. The older my D5200 gets, and the better new technology becomes, the more of a reasonable purchase full-frame becomes. It might sound really silly, but my 85mm 1.8G is one of the big reasons I want to move to full frame.

To answer PaulPositions's question: On a full frame, 14mm is extremely wide. 16mm is still very wide. An 11mm lens on a full frame would be ridiculous (that's more fisheye territory, which isn't exactly landscape).
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
PaulWog said:
Thanks for all the responses. I've received some very good input, lots of great advice overall, and I've got a number of things to consider now.

I think I may very well go with the Tokina 11-16mm. In fact, the only thing holding me back is worries of lens variation / focus calibration. I'm not sure if I'll buy used or go new, I'll have to make a decision when I get around to it. I'll reconsider some of my other options which have been recommended to me.

To answer a couple other things: I think I want to go full frame because of how it changes my lens lineup. My 50mm becomes far more useful, and so does my 85mm. Yes, I could size down to smaller lenses, but there's definite trade-offs. There's that, and then there's also better ISO performance, better focusing, and the fact that moving from my D5200 I will get focus fine tune on a full frame. With that all said, it's a bit of a silly purchase at the moment. The older my D5200 gets, and the better new technology becomes, the more of a reasonable purchase full-frame becomes. It might sound really silly, but my 85mm 1.8G is one of the big reasons I want to move to full frame.

To answer PaulPositions's question: On a full frame, 14mm is extremely wide. 16mm is still very wide. An 11mm lens on a full frame would be ridiculous (that's more fisheye territory, which isn't exactly landscape).
Click to expand...

A few points. I doubt if focus is much of an issue on the Tokina as everything tends to be in focus unless you try hard as you have lots of depth of field.

The ISO performance of a D7100 is not bad at all, about a stop behind the D800. A D2.8 DX lens is cheaper than an F4 FX lens which equals that out a bit.

The autofocus of a D7100 is better than a 600/610 and at least as good as an 800. It also give fine tuning.

I wouldn't buy an FX body to make use of fairly cheap (but very good) primes as the rest of the FX glass will cost lots.

One thing FX does give is shallower depth of field where that's an advantage.

I'm not trying to say that FX does not have any benefits, however they are much less than even two years ago.

You can get FX fish eyes at 16mm.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
O

outlet15

Senior Member
Just to throw this option out there. I have a D5200 and a D7100. For ultra wide, I was having a tough chose on which one to go with. I ended up with a Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6. Now it is not a fast lens like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which I was really hoping for, but damn if this lens does put out some amazing shots. I love it and feel it was a great investment. I have used it for landscapes and auto shots, both of which I have no complaints. during the day, early morning, sunset... this lens is awesome. At 8mm it has only a little distortion around the edges, and at 16mm it has nice crisp lines.
Take a look into it.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Go to a store where you can handle both Dx and Fx lenses mounted on their proper mount. I've shot Dx with the Nikon 10-24 and Fx with the 18-35g. Fx is much more usable across the entire frame. Light gathering much greater on Fx, D600 about 200%+ greater ISO capabilities than that of a D7100. Once you look through the viewfinder comparing Fx and Dx you will not need anyone's advice.

That being said, I'm looking to pick up a D7100 or the next new Dx for it's crop factor, where Dx shines. Wide is more of a struggle for Dx, physics.

Don't buy any more lenses until you commit to a format (or plan to have both)!
 
Last edited:
Top