Which to buy for landscape/ buildings/ nightsky

mark240590

Senior Member
So I've decided that landscapes and night skies are more my thing. I do have the 18-55 & 70-300 already and have thought a Tokina 11-14mm would be a great addition to my arsenal.

I've spoken to a few already and had a good read on the internet and it's always somewhat of a mixed bag. One I read seems to think that the ultra wide is great at first then loses its glimour.

So really I'm looking for our great community to throw me their opinions of what I should get :)


Thanks in advance.

Mark.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I assume you mean the Tokina 11-16mm (16.5-24mm FX equivalent). For landscapes and night skies, having something wider than 18mm (27mm FX equivalent) would be worth considering. I have the Tokina 12-24mm and use it quite a bit on my D7200 for landscapes. For example I took a photo of the Eiffel Tower from my room in the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas and got the whole tower in one shot. Something I could not have done without my 12-24mm lens.
 

mark240590

Senior Member
I assume you mean the Tokina 11-16mm (16.5-24mm FX equivalent). For landscapes and night skies, having something wider than 18mm (27mm FX equivalent) would be worth considering. I have the Tokina 12-24mm and use it quite a bit on my D7200 for landscapes. For example I took a photo of the Eiffel Tower from my room in the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas and got the whole tower in one shot. Something I could not have done without my 12-24mm lens.

Thanks ! Indeed that's the one.
That puts some perspective on how wide that angle really is if you captured the Eiffel Tower from Vegas ! :)

I joke, I know there's one there. But it sounds like the kind of exaggeration I would use to someone if I were asked about it :D

Honestly thanks, the majority of things I've heard are good I just wanted some extra opinions from real people instead of a website that I don't know etc..

Mark.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
So I've decided that landscapes and night skies are more my thing. I do have the 18-55 & 70-300 already and have thought a Tokina 11-14mm would be a great addition to my arsenal.

I've spoken to a few already and had a good read on the internet and it's always somewhat of a mixed bag. One I read seems to think that the ultra wide is great at first then loses its glimour.

So really I'm looking for our great community to throw me their opinions of what I should get :)

Thanks in advance.
Well I wouldn't call myself a Landscape photographer, per se, but I have shot some landscapes and I'm of the opinion they do not require a wide-angle lens. I know... I'm speaking heresy. That being said, if you want to shoot wide-angle then by all means buy a wide-angle lens; but don't buy a wide-angle lens because you think putting MORE into the frame will make for a better landscape photo. Awesome light, a strong subject and good composition are what make a great landscape photo. In fact I'll tell you I find wide-angle lenses the most difficult to use WELL from an aesthetic standpoint, by far, because they bring so much into the frame.

All THAT being said, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is an excellent wide-angle lens but has been discontinued. Used copies abound. It was replaced by the 12-28mm f/4 which is also an excellent lens.
 

"CHRIS"

Senior Member
I'm looking real hard at the Tokina 11-20mm f 2.8. I think I'd appreciate it for more than just landscapes too. There's a few car shows and architecture shots where close quarters had me wishing for this type of lens. The low light capabilities is a bonus as well.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
Thanks ! Indeed that's the one.
That puts some perspective on how wide that angle really is if you captured the Eiffel Tower from Vegas ! :)Mark.

No, actually for that shot, I would have used my Sigma 150-600 :encouragement:

Seriously though, if I am traveling light, I normally only carry two lenses, my 12-24mm and 18-200mm. These two lenses cover many, many situations. If I am shooting wildlife (with my camera, not my gun :cool:) I pack the telephotos. If shooting macros, I use the (are your ready for this) I use the macro lens.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
Here is the shot of the Eiffel Tower shot at 13mm.

las_vegas.jpg
 

Danno

Senior Member
I agree that you do not need a ultra wide angle for every shot, but I do really like it. I have a Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 that I use a lot. My favorite landscape shots tend to be with this lens, but not all. When I was looking I considered the Tokina 11-20 and the Sigma and opted for the Sigma, but you cannot go wrong with either in my opinion.

I do like the added reach of the 20 mm over 16 because it slightly increases my versatility. We have a car show once a month in town and I like it there... I also like the perspective you can get with it on Architecture and such. I went to High Bridge the other day. Took my whole bag of lenses along, but stuck with my Sigma. But not all landscape shots require a wide angle. The second shot below was done with my 70-200 f/2.8 Tamron.


High Bridge KY-6452.jpg


Morning Walk-6091.jpg
 

mark240590

Senior Member
I'm beginning to think that the larger zoom may be better then. I don't do much indoor shooting atall nothing that my 18-55 isn't adept too but if needs must I would buy a prime for that. I do want one too catch the northern lights too as this time of year we get a strong aurora in my cold little slice of hell :)
 

mark240590

Senior Member
So as a man who will mainly take landscapes or architecture during the day and the night sky occasionally maybe the newer Tokina would be for the best ? I know the 11-16 is a wider aperture but I won't be doing much indoor low light shooting anyway. I would have thought the f4 on 12-24 would be adequate for a Milky Way shot too am I right ?

Maybe I should also give sigma and Tamron some consideration. I know it's quite often personal preference but I'm glad we have a lot of members to impart their knowledge :)
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
So as a man who will mainly take landscapes or architecture during the day and the night sky occasionally maybe the newer Tokina would be for the best ? I know the 11-16 is a wider aperture but I won't be doing much indoor low light shooting anyway. I would have thought the f4 on 12-24 would be adequate for a Milky Way shot too am I right ?

Maybe I should also give sigma and Tamron some consideration. I know it's quite often personal preference but I'm glad we have a lot of members to impart their knowledge :)
Some good reading regarding how to shoot the Milky Way from Peta Pixel.

One hugely important aspect in both shooting the Milky Way and architectural is post processing. The importance really can't be overstated, IMO.
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I owned the Tokina 11-16 when I was DX only and now have the Nikon 14-24. They're great for architecture, landscapes and also for creating dramatic portraits or close-up shots that can include interesting backgrounds. Or, when you have to take a photo of something in tight quarters, only a UWA will do.

I also have a Tokina macro lens and like Tokina's engineering and build quality. They also make an 11-20 2.8.
 
Last edited:

TedG954

Senior Member
I owned the Tokina 12-24/4 and it was an excellent lens. Today, I would choose the 12-28/4.

11mm vs 12mm is minimal, but 28mm over 16mm or even 20mm is a lot more versatile.
 
Top