Wide Lens For D300

Joburg

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to decide on a wide lens to use with my new Nikon D300. It's down to the Nikkor AF-S 12-24MM F4 DX and the new Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm F2.8 G ED. The latter is designed for the full frame D3 and Ken Rockwell says that it is a waste to use it with the D300. Problem is that the lens which he suggests as an alternative, the former, has received mixed reviews and was actualy described by an Australian reviewer as quote , '....a pile of crap.' They don't mince words down here!
The former has issues with CA and distortion at wider angles, it's not particularly fast for the price and is badly built.
Do any of you guys use either of these lenses with a D300? If so, what do you reckon. I'd be interested in your views.
Cheers,
Chris

ziggy53

Hi Chris, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Also look at the:

Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tokina 12-24mm, f/4.0 PRO DX
Tamron 11-18mm, f/4.5-5.6 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)

The truth is there are no "perfect" lenses and all are compromises of some sort. Some are obviously better in certain aspects than others so choose what is important to you.

CA, for instance, falls into 2 categories, correctable and uncorrectable. Unless I "need" a lens to perform perfectly in this regard, if it is a "correctable" CA I don't consider it that big a deal. I deal with that issue in post.

I wound up choosing the Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for my applications because the extra angle-of-view offered at 10mm was a primary consideration. (My only other serious contender for my camera platform was the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, f/3.5-4.5 USM, which was not so much of a value for a lens I would only use occasionally.)

When I got the lens I tested all of the other qualities to insure that this particular copy was up to "my" standards according to "my" tests. Other than a minor centering issue, I had gotten a good copy. I am very happy with the performance of the lens and I have no intention to replace it.

Tee Why

I'd wait and get the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, as long as you don't do a lot of close focusing work.

Ken Reviewed it and it seems to be very good compared to the Nikon 12-24mm f4.

LKN Dave

Tee Why wrote:

I'd wait and get the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, as long as you don't do a lot of close focusing work.

Ken Reviewed it and it seems to be very good compared to the Nikon 12-24mm f4.

I enjoy Ken's articles a lot but I haven't found much Ken didn't like. Not that its a bad thing, he just is happy with most lenses.

Icebear

Most reviewers I'm aware of say the Tokina 12-24 f4 is the equal (at least) of the Nikkor 12-24 at about 60% of the price. Why would you pay $950 or so for the Nikkor when the $500 Tokina is as good. Im an architectural photographer, and the Tokina is my workhorse. If you're not familiar with this lens test site, you should check it out. Oh, and I use a D300 and D200.

BPerron

Like others have said, look into 3rd party lenses especially in this aspect, the nikkor line up for wide angle (the ones you are looking at) are only slightly better then ones you are looking at, and does not justify the price jump over the rest.

I do think Nikkor lenses excell on some of them, but in this case I think you are ok with a 3rd party lens, of the brands which have been mentioned in this thread.

Joburg

BPerron wrote:

Like others have said, look into 3rd party lenses especially in this aspect, the nikkor line up for wide angle (the ones you are looking at) are only slightly better then ones you are looking at, and does not justify the price jump over the rest.

I do think Nikkor lenses excell on some of them, but in this case I think you are ok with a 3rd party lens, of the brands which have been mentioned in this thread.

Thanks guys, I th I'm going to have to stop being a Nikon snob and look at some of these third party lenses. I'm grateful for your advice.

BPerron

Joburg wrote:

Thanks guys, I th I'm going to have to stop being a Nikon snob and look at some of these third party lenses. I'm grateful for your advice.

I know what you mean about being a Nikon snob, I was in the same boat as you and still am for the most part...but until I can take my career into photography, I can not jusitify spending well over 1,000 bucks on lenses, yet anyways...plus some of the third parties lenses rank right up there with the nikkors anyways...

jonh68

I enjoy Ken's articles a lot but I haven't found much Ken didn't like. Not that its a bad thing, he just is happy with most lenses.

I don't know about that, but this is the first non canon/nikon lens he has liked to the point which he thinks it's superior to the nikon lenses.

Tee Why

OT, but Ken states a lot the gear doesn't matter but he is a bit of a lens snob from what I read as he generally poo poo's third party lens.

Make him sound a little contradictory to say gear and brands don't really matter but then lens brands do.

As far as I can tell, I can't tell which print is made with what body and lens maker. As long as the image is good, that's what I care about.

Interesting thing about tokes, is that I heard that they were started by Nikon lens guys and hence that's why they even look like Nikon lenses and maybe why they introduce all their lenses in Nikon mount first.

nightowlcat

http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm

I take anything KR says about anything and toss it aside, it's not worth the electrons used.

Try these two instead:

http://bythom.com/nikon.htm

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

You'll get far more useful answers and no Bovine Serendipity.

jonh68

nightowlcat wrote:

http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm

I take anything KR says about anything and toss it aside, it's not worth the electrons used.

Try these two instead:

http://bythom.com/nikon.htm

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

You'll get far more useful answers and no Bovine Serendipity.

It didn't take long for the obligatory KR bash post.

jonh68

Tee Why wrote:

Interesting thing about tokes, is that I heard that they were started by Nikon lens guys and hence that's why they even look like Nikon lenses and maybe why they introduce all their lenses in Nikon mount first.

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tokina/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_1.html

Joburg

jonh68 wrote:

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tokina/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_1.html

I'm also a bit confused about the stated focal lenghs on DX and FX Nikkor lenses. If the lens is a DX version and is, say a 28mm, does that mean it has a real 28mm focal lengh on a cropped frame camera? I understand that FX and older Nikkor lenses have a longer or shorter focal lengh when used on DX bodies, so no problem there although if someone knows the formula for converting the focal lengh when you are using such lenses on a DX body, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,
Chris

ziggy53

Joburg wrote:

I'm also a bit confused about the stated focal lenghs on DX and FX Nikkor lenses. If the lens is a DX version and is, say a 28mm, does that mean it has a real 28mm focal lengh on a cropped frame camera? I understand that FX and older Nikkor lenses have a longer or shorter focal lengh when used on DX bodies, so no problem there although if someone knows the formula for converting the focal lengh when you are using such lenses on a DX body, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,
Chris

Chris,

As far as I know all dSLR lens manufacturers use "actual" focal length when stating specifications for their lenses. Nikon "DX" bodies use a focal length multiplier (crop) factor of 1.5x. What this means is that if you are familiar with the Field of View (FOV) and Angle of View (AOV) of particular focal lengths on a full-frame SLR, you multiply the actual rated focal length of the lens by the crop factor of 1.5 to achieve the equivalent view on that camera.

For instance, assuming that 50mm is a standard/normal focal length for a full frame 35mm format camera, the roughly equivalent FOV can be approximated by a 35mm lens on a Nikon DX camera. (35mm focal length times 1.5 crop factor yields 52.5mm effective FOV/AOV).

I am writing an article about this very subject which I hope to post sometime soon.

FedererPhoto

FX, DX and any other lens nikon puts out (well, SLR lens) state the actual focal length. A DX 28mm and a FX 28mm will produce the exact same FoV on a DX camera (that is, one equivalent to 42mm on a FX camera)...

Joburg

FedererPhoto wrote:

FX, DX and any other lens nikon puts out (well, SLR lens) state the actual focal length. A DX 28mm and a FX 28mm will produce the exact same FoV on a DX camera (that is, one equivalent to 42mm on a FX camera)...

Thanks guys for taking the time clarifying this for me. Ziggy I look forward to reading your article on this subject in the not too distant feature.,
Chris
Cheers