Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ultra-wide lens for D200
#1
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~
#2
[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.
#3
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317807016' post='12106']

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.

[/quote]



Thank you very much for you reply!



1. So are you saying that although 12-24mm can be used for both APS-C and FF, the optical quality is only good on APS-C? It may leave the No.1 advantage of this lens pretty weak.



2. What about the overall optical quality on APS-C of 12-24 and 8-16? Do you know which one is better?
#4
[quote name='thankdream' timestamp='1317834915' post='12136']

Thank you very much for you reply!



1. So are you saying that although 12-24mm can be used for both APS-C and FF, the optical quality is only good on APS-C? It may leave the No.1 advantage of this lens pretty weak.



2. What about the overall optical quality on APS-C of 12-24 and 8-16? Do you know which one is better?

[/quote]

1. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you concluding the old one performs better must stem from you comparing the FF review of the 2nd version to the APS-C review of the 1st version. If you compare both on APS-C, the new one is better. If you compare both on FF, the new one is better.



The old one is much better on FF and a little better on APS-C concerning distortion. For the rest (over all sharpness, CA performance) the new one is better.



2. Saying which one is better from the 12-24 or 8-16 is a bit nonsensical... the 8-16mm is so much wider that comparing is not very sensible.



Get the Tokina 11-16mm if you don't want/line bulging front elements, or want/need to sue certain kinds of filters.

Get the Sigma 8-16mm if you want an super ultra wide lens on APS-C. The difference between 8 and 11/12mm is very big.

Get the Sigma 12-24mm if you need a lens both for APS-C (ultra wide) and FF (super ultra wide).



Choose with those criteria in mind. Differences in image quality are rather marginal, and therefore not so interesting.
#5
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317897183' post='12166']

Get the Tokina 11-16mm if you don't want/line bulging front elements, or want/need to sue certain kinds of filters.

[/quote]

Finally. There are indeed certain polarizing filters that I've always wanted to sue.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)