#8340970 - 08/25/15 11:27 PM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: 2000CheetahStud]
|
tylerdurden
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/31/02
Posts: 25862
Loc: Shyea, like I'm telling you
|
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a fantastically sharp lens, made for your APS-C sensor, and it's pretty cheap at the moment. I rented one to compare to my at-the-time UWA, the Sigma 10-20, since I wasn't too happy with that one, and it fucking blew it out of the water. If I shot crop still I'd have that lens. It's as low as $400 on some mounts right now (looks like it's about $50 more for Nikon versions ATM). It's fast, built like a tank, sharp, and cheap. Downsides are the limited range and somewhat less reliable QC than Nikon. Buy it local, test it immediately, and exchange it if it's a bad copy. If it's a good copy, you'll get stellar results without breaking the bank.
If I shot crop Nikon, I'd get the Tokina, the Sigma 18-35 1.8, and the Nikkor 50 1.8 and that'd just about do it for me. I rarely shoot longer. Maybe get the 85 1.8 too for some reach.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8353340 - 09/03/15 08:09 PM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: tylerdurden]
|
chef
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 04/27/00
Posts: 23758
Loc: The OC
|
i had the tokina when i shot with a d300s crop body. it was pretty sweet. about as wide as you can get there. the zoom is merely a technicality, there's not much zooming going on there, lol. as mentioned though, buy local so you can test and return. or do b&h or something with a great return policy. I'm pretty certain that the one I got, which was an open box from samys, was a return. it wasn't as pixel peeper tack sharp as it probably should have been. for what i was doing it was fine but i think it could have been better.
i had rented either the nikkor 10-24 or 12-24 before i really got into any of this semi seriously, and started looking at those when i wanted a wide angle. I read a bunch of the ken rockwell reviews and decided on the tokina. Here's the ken rockwell disclaimer, take it for what it's worth. his camera setup guides were instrumental in me understanding what the various settings on the camera did, how to use multi mode settings, how to configure the favorites button on the front of the body for quick access to random menu settings, and the lens comparisons are pretty helpful for seeing real world info. I don't feel the need to push up saturation and match his settings, but I was able to understand what i was working on and dial it in to suit myself. Unfortunately he says some retarded stuff sometimes and people would rather whole cloth dismiss his site than to simply take it for what it is. Some info.
_________________________
Why choose mac? "Well, huh, might as, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?" RRLSi "put that money into a new imac damn it. it's the bomb" jsmonet "This all fuckin' day. Feel the 900MB/sec of glory. It's like a digital money shot all over your face." RRLSi Order my photo prints (New files uploaded)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8353346 - 09/03/15 08:15 PM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: tylerdurden]
|
chef
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 04/27/00
Posts: 23758
Loc: The OC
|
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a fantastically sharp lens, made for your APS-C sensor, and it's pretty cheap at the moment. I rented one to compare to my at-the-time UWA, the Sigma 10-20, since I wasn't too happy with that one, and it fucking blew it out of the water. If I shot crop still I'd have that lens. It's as low as $400 on some mounts right now (looks like it's about $50 more for Nikon versions ATM). It's fast, built like a tank, sharp, and cheap. Downsides are the limited range and somewhat less reliable QC than Nikon. Buy it local, test it immediately, and exchange it if it's a bad copy. If it's a good copy, you'll get stellar results without breaking the bank.
If I shot crop Nikon, I'd get the Tokina, the Sigma 18-35 1.8, and the Nikkor 50 1.8 and that'd just about do it for me. I rarely shoot longer. Maybe get the 85 1.8 too for some reach.
The 85 1.8 is pretty great, and would be a nice affordable 'long' lens for the crop body. I really like mine. Sharp as all get out, great everything. For what Matt's been shooting, the 18-35 and a 50 would be a really great kit
_________________________
Why choose mac? "Well, huh, might as, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?" RRLSi "put that money into a new imac damn it. it's the bomb" jsmonet "This all fuckin' day. Feel the 900MB/sec of glory. It's like a digital money shot all over your face." RRLSi Order my photo prints (New files uploaded)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8353608 - 09/04/15 02:02 AM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: chef]
|
tylerdurden
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/31/02
Posts: 25862
Loc: Shyea, like I'm telling you
|
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a fantastically sharp lens, made for your APS-C sensor, and it's pretty cheap at the moment. I rented one to compare to my at-the-time UWA, the Sigma 10-20, since I wasn't too happy with that one, and it fucking blew it out of the water. If I shot crop still I'd have that lens. It's as low as $400 on some mounts right now (looks like it's about $50 more for Nikon versions ATM). It's fast, built like a tank, sharp, and cheap. Downsides are the limited range and somewhat less reliable QC than Nikon. Buy it local, test it immediately, and exchange it if it's a bad copy. If it's a good copy, you'll get stellar results without breaking the bank.
If I shot crop Nikon, I'd get the Tokina, the Sigma 18-35 1.8, and the Nikkor 50 1.8 and that'd just about do it for me. I rarely shoot longer. Maybe get the 85 1.8 too for some reach. Pretty good recommendations. The Sigma 18-35 seems to be really great. A snob friend of mine had one for his 7D and really liked it. Otherwise I'd recommend the Nikkor 35 1.8, small and light, super sharp, pretty cheap. The 50 1.8 D is meh to me, I'm not sure if the d7000 requires the G lens or if it'd work with the D, but there was a fuck ton of chromatic aberration shooting wide open with bright areas in the frame...which yeah, it's a $120 lens brand new, it's to be expected. In my experience though the coatings of the G lenses are worth it. The 85 1.8 is pretty great, and would be a nice affordable 'long' lens for the crop body. I really like mine. Sharp as all get out, great everything. For what Matt's been shooting, the 18-35 and a 50 would be a really great kit
Sorry I wasn't specific, I meant the G's.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8353613 - 09/04/15 02:50 AM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: skierd]
|
tylerdurden
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/31/02
Posts: 25862
Loc: Shyea, like I'm telling you
|
Panoramas are all good and well until you have anything moving faster than a cloud in your shot. They're not a really a sub for a good WA or UWA lens.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8353889 - 09/04/15 11:34 AM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: tylerdurden]
|
tenplanescrashing
tenplanescrashing
Unregistered
|
On a crop, here are my suggestions:
Nikon 10-24
Tokina 12-28
Sigma 10-20
People love the Tokina 11-16, but that range is just too limited for me. I had the older Tokina 12-24 (non-BIM) and it was a fantastic lens and i've heard the newer 12-28 is just as good, if not better.
I also heard good things about the Nikon 10-24 but that the BD was a little more pronounced because of the range (this is a plus for the Tokina 11-16 as it has less BD by design).
You honestly can't beat the value and quality Tokina provides. Built like a tank, great QC, great IQ and great price for the non-pros.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8354865 - 09/05/15 04:36 PM
Re: Good lens for landscapes/panoramic
[Re: tylerdurden]
|
chef
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 04/27/00
Posts: 23758
Loc: The OC
|
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a fantastically sharp lens, made for your APS-C sensor, and it's pretty cheap at the moment. I rented one to compare to my at-the-time UWA, the Sigma 10-20, since I wasn't too happy with that one, and it fucking blew it out of the water. If I shot crop still I'd have that lens. It's as low as $400 on some mounts right now (looks like it's about $50 more for Nikon versions ATM). It's fast, built like a tank, sharp, and cheap. Downsides are the limited range and somewhat less reliable QC than Nikon. Buy it local, test it immediately, and exchange it if it's a bad copy. If it's a good copy, you'll get stellar results without breaking the bank.
If I shot crop Nikon, I'd get the Tokina, the Sigma 18-35 1.8, and the Nikkor 50 1.8 and that'd just about do it for me. I rarely shoot longer. Maybe get the 85 1.8 too for some reach. Pretty good recommendations. The Sigma 18-35 seems to be really great. A snob friend of mine had one for his 7D and really liked it. Otherwise I'd recommend the Nikkor 35 1.8, small and light, super sharp, pretty cheap. The 50 1.8 D is meh to me, I'm not sure if the d7000 requires the G lens or if it'd work with the D, but there was a fuck ton of chromatic aberration shooting wide open with bright areas in the frame...which yeah, it's a $120 lens brand new, it's to be expected. In my experience though the coatings of the G lenses are worth it. The 85 1.8 is pretty great, and would be a nice affordable 'long' lens for the crop body. I really like mine. Sharp as all get out, great everything. For what Matt's been shooting, the 18-35 and a 50 would be a really great kit Sorry I wasn't specific, I meant the G's.
_________________________
Why choose mac? "Well, huh, might as, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?" RRLSi "put that money into a new imac damn it. it's the bomb" jsmonet "This all fuckin' day. Feel the 900MB/sec of glory. It's like a digital money shot all over your face." RRLSi Order my photo prints (New files uploaded)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: jsmonet, x, 2000SiRacer, Professor Paki
|
|
