Which super-wide zoom for my Nikon D70?

[aphex]

I've narrowed my choices down to two. The Nikkor 12-24, while a fantastic lens, is well out of my budget at nearly (if not over) $1000... Both of the lenses i am considering below can be had for ~$450. I've read some reviews and 'shootouts', but they seem to be a toss up. Unfortunately, no local stores here carry either, so trying them out isn't an option.

I sold my other lenses (70-300 and 18-70) and replaced them with an 18-200vr. Looking for something to complement this lens and give some nice wide angle shots when i shoot landscapes. I also have the kickass 50mm 1.8d, but that dosen't play into my decision. Anyway....

Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 HSM EX DC - About as wide as they come (2mm wider than the other choice below), but reports of random QC issues (specifically noticable lack of sharpness on the right 1/3 of the image on random lenses). Also, some complain it feels "cheap" and clunky, which in the grand scheme of things, isn't a big deal, but i don't want it breaking if it truly IS "cheap". Here are some random sample photos from pbase


Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX - Reports of excellent build quality and construction, very few reports of QC issues, constant f/4, but wide reports of noticable CA across the board, and 2mm less wide (is that how you say that?) than the Sigma. Also, since this lens overlaps with my 18-200 a bit more than the sigma range. Here are some random sample photos from pbase and anands.net


Which do you think i should go for?

 

[Bootprint]

I like my Sigma 10-20mm.

Have you checked out the Wide angle shootout over a the Nikonians?

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Bootprint
I like my Sigma 10-20mm.

Have you checked out the Wide angle shootout over a the Nikonians?

Yea, that def. helped me narrow the field down to these two, but im stuck as to which one I should go for...

 

[Sukhoi]

When lenses are described by "70-300" and "18-200" is that talking about the equivalent 35mm zoom length? My A700 has a 35-210mm zoom, so can I actually zoom farther than a 18-200 lens? Obviously the lens will have much superior clarity, light transmittance, etc.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
When lenses are described by "70-300" and "18-200" is that talking about the equivalent 35mm zoom length? My A700 has a 35-210mm zoom, so can I actually zoom farther than a 18-200 lens? Obviously the lens will have much superior clarity, light transmittance, etc.

Yes, but if you're using it in a DSLR, I think there was something liek a 1/3 increase because of the sensor size. Because of that, your 18-200 can go further then your 35-210.

Someone please correct me on the increase percentage.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
When lenses are described by "70-300" and "18-200" is that talking about the equivalent 35mm zoom length? My A700 has a 35-210mm zoom, so can I actually zoom farther than a 18-200 lens? Obviously the lens will have much superior clarity, light transmittance, etc.

Yes, but if you're using it in a DSLR, I think there was something liek a 1/3 increase because of the sensor size. Because of that, your 18-200 can go further then your 35-210.

Someone please correct me on the increase percentage.

Its usually 1.5x or 1.6x depending on the body manuf.

d70: 1.5x
dreb: 1.6x

 

[aphex]

bedtime bump

 

[MrDudeMan]

definitely do not get the sigma. i have used both and the tokina is far superior. sigma is usually a lower quality lens, so if you have the money, get a better one. their optics abberate a lot worse than canon, tamron, tokina, etc.

edit: this goes for all ranges. sigma is the value brand lens. having a constant f/4 is and better clarity is way more important than being a little bit wider.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
When lenses are described by "70-300" and "18-200" is that talking about the equivalent 35mm zoom length? My A700 has a 35-210mm zoom, so can I actually zoom farther than a 18-200 lens? Obviously the lens will have much superior clarity, light transmittance, etc.

Yes, but if you're using it in a DSLR, I think there was something liek a 1/3 increase because of the sensor size. Because of that, your 18-200 can go further then your 35-210.

Someone please correct me on the increase percentage.

its called the crop factor. the image that lands on the sensor is bigger than the actual sensor size. basically it is like cutting off a little bit all around the outside of the light that enters the optics. as aphex said, you multiply the crop factor by the focal distance to get the actual focal length seen by the sensor.

quite a few of the best cameras have a crop factor, so that doesnt make it a bad camera at all.

 

[ucdbiendog]

i have the tokina for my digital rebel xt and love it. instead of looking at the focal lengths, look at the maximum angle of view for the lens. the difference btw 10 and 12mm may be only a few degrees. but i highly recommend the tokina lens.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Wait for Zeiss to come out with a wide-angle prime in a Nikon F mount. Now that Contax is dead, Zeiss is making lenses for Nikon and they should be ramping up shortly.

If I go DSLR, I have to go Nikon. Zeiss made the decision for me.

ZV

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Wait for Zeiss to come out with a wide-angle prime in a Nikon F mount. Now that Contax is dead, Zeiss is making lenses for Nikon and they should be ramping up shortly.

If I go DSLR, I have to go Nikon. Zeiss made the decision for me.

ZV

i can only imagine how much that lens will be though... 🙂

 

[Sukhoi]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
When lenses are described by "70-300" and "18-200" is that talking about the equivalent 35mm zoom length? My A700 has a 35-210mm zoom, so can I actually zoom farther than a 18-200 lens? Obviously the lens will have much superior clarity, light transmittance, etc.

Yes, but if you're using it in a DSLR, I think there was something liek a 1/3 increase because of the sensor size. Because of that, your 18-200 can go further then your 35-210.

Someone please correct me on the increase percentage.

Its usually 1.5x or 1.6x depending on the body manuf.

d70: 1.5x
dreb: 1.6x

Cool, makes sense.

 

[virtuamike]

LOL I live like 2 miles from Anand. He's a good guy, just don't ask him about the glue incident 😛

I'd give the nod to the Tokina. CA shouldn't be an issue if you stop down (which you should be doing when shooting wide). And as far as the difference between 10mm and 12mm you probably won't notice. That's already pretty damn wide.

And don't worry about overlap with the 18-200.

Though in that price range, have you considered the Nikkor 10.5 fisheye or are you stuck on getting a rectilinear zoom?

 

[Triumph]

I've read that the Sigma's on Nikon mounts have overall better quality than the Canon mounts, not sure why that would be. I would go with the Tokina for the constant F4. And if you're worried about overlap with an 18-200...well 18-200 is a huge range, not sure what lens that is but it's probably not the best at either extreme to get that sort of focal range.