Poo d'état Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Okay, i'm considering my next lens, and being a big fan of the wide angle, i've narrowed it down to three nominees: - Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II Aspherical - Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D - Tokina AF 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX Unfortunately i'm yet to find one that ticks all my boxes (needs to be superwide expecially given cropped angle of viewing on my D90, but needs to be small and light so i can take it around in my handbag/tote/etc - my current staple Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX is a bit of a beast to lug around, not to mention makes me stick out like a sore thumb), i've weighed the pros and cons of the above, and just want to see what everyone thinks i should get: - the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II Aspherical pros: is uber small, bit of a pancake lens at 63mm diameter x 28.8mm length and only 205g cons: bokeh is rather ugly, for want of a better word (i do like a nice and creamy bokeh); is a focal length already covered with my current zoom, and a whole 2 stops slower cost: $769 - the Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D pros: size - not as small as the Voigtlander but still compact enough at 69mm diameter x 42.5mm length and 270g; very nice bokeh cons: once again, a focal length already covered with my current zoom, equally fast cost: $300+ secondhand (currently available), $820ish brand new - the Tokina AF 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX pros: much wider than the others, possibly the widest on the market at f2.8, woukd complement my 17-55 very nicely: very nice bokeh cons: size is a bit of a bitch at 89.2mm long and 560g, quite close to my current one in size but about 200g lighter; this is a DX/cropped lens, at this wide, i probably won't have much use for it if/when i upgrade to full frame (though i can still sell it i suppose) cost: $795 So, opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I adore my Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's not terribly tiny, but it's not a beast either. I usually have this in a pouch with me when I walk the doglets on the beach in the mornings, just in case I want something nice and wide. Would not be without this lens AND I already have the Canon 10-22 which covers the same range (I wouldn't be without my Canon 10-22 either ever!!) 20 isn't *that* wide honestly and you've already covered it with the 17-55 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 Yeah, optically it's really the Tokina that i want. I really need to fit it on my camera to see how big and heavy the whole thing is (but i'm yet to find it in a bricks'n'mortar shop), and how well it'll fit in the regular bags that i take with me. It's mainly so that i'd shoot more street stuff. Kja how do you find the focus ring mechanism when switching between AF and MF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) I have a Sigma 10-20 which gets very good reviews and it's reasonably priced. I haggled for a good price on it. I have used it twice on holiday. I love it, but when used with a polariser you have to be careful the sky doesn't go too dark in the corners, that's all. I have read good reviews about the Tamron. I almost bought that but like my Sigma 17-70 so stuck with Sigma. I don't find it heavy either. Edited June 18, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 Ripley i did look at the Sigma 10-20 but it just didn't seem quite small or fast enough at 4-5.6. The more i think about it, the more i'm tempted to get both the Tokina and the Nikkor... hmm, decisions, desicions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumCorner Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 - Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II Aspherical- Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D - Tokina AF 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX so, opinions? ... I don't have opinions, just confusions. I suppose it depends somewhat on what you are shooting. The Tokina does look the best choice there - but the used Nikkor, also too good a buy to pass up. I was surprised you didn't have the Sigma 10-20 on the short list, then the reason was covered. I don't have a wide, only a Nikon 18-55 (?kit maybe) a touch soft anyway when at 18. Now you've made me think again: my short-list was only the Sigma, and I hadn't considered needing 2.8 because landscapes would be mostly wanting more depth of field, not less. But if I took up interior shots for the estate agent who offered the chance, 2.8 would be useful in low light rooms. Then another interiors shooter said 24mm is about as wide as you want, or the distortion can become obvious. And I prefer prime to zoom: so more confusion. Or indecision. I guess selection should be made depending on the main use you have in mind, there'll always be some compromise. You're brave doing street stuff these days, it is getting difficulter, at least the Soi Dogs don't question your intentions. Last week I was at a talk by a local photo-journalist: said it's all turned into a minefield but we just have to keep trying to stand up for our rights and not stop shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I have to admit I never bother with MF so couldn't tell you The AF is mighty fast and I can't imagine needing to MF my WA. I might have time later today to have a play if you want, but it isn't something I've found a use for yet. BTW - on the corporate shoot I did for the new resort here, I used the Tokina 11-16 a lot for interiors. Learning how to hold the lens flat and level will go a long long way towards reducing any distortion. Heck, I even used the 10-17 fisheye for a few shots and as long as I was careful they turned out great. If you are shooting interiors for a real estate agent or whatever, you're most likely going to be strategically lighting things up with external, remote triggered flashes anyway so 2.8 will be of limited use (unless you are blessed with the perfect that house that has perfect natural lighting highlighting all the important details and blessed to be shooting on the perfectly lit day!) I still don't think 20 is wide enough, personally. I use the 10-17 range of all of my superwides far more often than I hit the 18-22 range :D The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens. Totally excellent value for money. It isn't as fast as the Canon version, but it's a delight to use and usually in WA you won't need the speed in focusing. The 2.8 is very nice on the Tokina but the Canon and Sigma are great performers so if you won't be shooting low light then I would probably head to one of those. The Canon handles flare far far better than either of the other two so if that's more like what you'll be shooting, then go with the Canon. If you will be shooting mostly outside but know you can control the time of day and position of the sun (about 90% of the time for most people!) then the Sigma will save you a few dollars, come with a lens hood and rock your socks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Oh yeah, I didn't think about fast focusing. I've only used it on a tripod for a sunset and dawn shot or hand holding it in very bright tropical light. Performed excellent both times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 You're brave doing street stuff these days, it is getting difficulter, at least the Soi Dogs don't question your intentions. Last week I was at a talk by a local photo-journalist: said it's all turned into a minefield but we just have to keep trying to stand up for our rights and not stop shooting. Yeah, the photojournalists that i work with have reported similar, people are getting more and more sensitive, and i don't entirely blame them. If i'm shooting a person in particular, i try to ask for permission, or, depending on the situation, i hold my camera up to my face but not quite to my eye, wait for the person's response to see if they object, and if they don't seem bothered, i take my shot. I've also on a couple of occasions shown people photos on my camera to let them know i'm not shooting anything sinister, defamatory or distasteful, that it's just a mere record. I have to admit I never bother with MF so couldn't tell you The AF is mighty fast and I can't imagine needing to MF my WA. I might have time later today to have a play if you want, but it isn't something I've found a use for yet. That's okay, it's not a major deal, it's just that i sometimes pre-focus or shoot without looking TTL, and others i do, so a good mechanism would be advantageous but not essential. Thanks for the feedback guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So what's it going to be?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo d'état Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Aaaaaaaargh! I thought i had the Nikkor 20mm set up for auction sniping, but i must've missed a step... so i missed out! I'm so annoyed with myself, it went for only $311! Argh dammit. Well, i'll have to keep an eye out for any other ones. In the meantime, i might just get the Tokina anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchnauzerBoy Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Edited as you've already discussed the lens! Edited July 16, 2009 by SchnauzerBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacklabrador Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I'm in the market for something similar so interested to hear comments. I don't care so much about size - just about quality. I seem to be looking the market of about $1200 - is that about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 PB, you could get the Canon one for that I think. I'm very happy with my sigma 10-20, but I don't use it unless I'm going somewhere very scenic. It has wonderful depth of field. Here is a sample shot taken with my Sigma, took this without a tripod and I think it’s pretty sharp hand holding too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now