10-05-2011, 09:30 AM
[quote name='thankdream' timestamp='1317805683' post='12103']
I have a D200 with Nikon 16-85 lens. I am going to some National Parks in the US this winter, and I am considering buying an ultra-wide lens.
The options may be Sigma 8-16, 12-24 and Tokina 11-16, I have read all the reviews of them. But I still cannot decide which one to buy. Here is some problems:
1. The optical quality of Sigma 12-24 II is lower than the first version in the review, why is so? Can't understand.Does it mean if I care about the optical quality most, I should buy the first version?
2. Markus have to go through 4 samples to get a comparatively good one of Sigma 8-16, does it mean the quality of it varies much?
P.S I am very frustrated about the ISO of D200, do I have to change it to get good pics? I really want to get some good pics on this trip.
Any advice and suggestion is welcome!Thanks~
[/quote]
1. The 12-24mm version 1 was tested on APS-C only. The 12-24mm version 2 was tested both on APS-C and FF. Are you sure you are not comparing the version 1 APS-C test to the version 2 FF test? On APS-C the version 2 is only worse with barrel distortion, but even there it performs quite well. On sharpness and especially CA it does quite a bit better.
2. It can mean quality of assembly varies. So, buy one that you can return if it does show a big problem in centering. Same with the Tokina, by the way. The Tokina can accept filters (nice for gradual neutral density filters for instance, or ND filters or even a pol. filter) and is less vulnerable because you can use a sun hood. The Sigma 8-16mm goes quite a bit wider. The 12-24 has neither of these advantages.
I have a D200 with Nikon 16-85 lens. I am going to some National Parks in the US this winter, and I am considering buying an ultra-wide lens.
The options may be Sigma 8-16, 12-24 and Tokina 11-16, I have read all the reviews of them. But I still cannot decide which one to buy. Here is some problems:
1. The optical quality of Sigma 12-24 II is lower than the first version in the review, why is so? Can't understand.Does it mean if I care about the optical quality most, I should buy the first version?
2. Markus have to go through 4 samples to get a comparatively good one of Sigma 8-16, does it mean the quality of it varies much?
P.S I am very frustrated about the ISO of D200, do I have to change it to get good pics? I really want to get some good pics on this trip.
Any advice and suggestion is welcome!Thanks~
[/quote]
1. The 12-24mm version 1 was tested on APS-C only. The 12-24mm version 2 was tested both on APS-C and FF. Are you sure you are not comparing the version 1 APS-C test to the version 2 FF test? On APS-C the version 2 is only worse with barrel distortion, but even there it performs quite well. On sharpness and especially CA it does quite a bit better.
2. It can mean quality of assembly varies. So, buy one that you can return if it does show a big problem in centering. Same with the Tokina, by the way. The Tokina can accept filters (nice for gradual neutral density filters for instance, or ND filters or even a pol. filter) and is less vulnerable because you can use a sun hood. The Sigma 8-16mm goes quite a bit wider. The 12-24 has neither of these advantages.