PDA

View Full Version : New lens



rwpontius
06-23-2008, 05:33 AM
Several months ago I broke down and bought the 12-24 Nikon lens that Waltney was considering earlier. I have used it a few times but finally gave it more of a test. I am not really a scenic photographer but thought I'd share some shots from around Lake Blanche. I guess it is the extra wide angle lens but early morning shots toward sunrise seem to have light banding around where the sun will be rising.
RP

DiscGo
06-23-2008, 05:41 AM
Wow! Your lake blanche picture is fantastic!

sparker1
06-23-2008, 08:45 AM
You're getting some good shots with it. Any camera has a limited dynamic range. When exposed for the darker elements, it has a tendency to overexpose the brighter elements. The wide angle lens simply brings in more of a scene, thereby increasing the chance of exceeding the camera's dynamic range.

waltny
06-26-2008, 09:49 AM
I ended up getting the 12-24 tonkina f/4 (at 350 price tag how could I not?) and dont regret it. That nikon version is just too pricey for my blood.

Looks like your getting some good shots with it and experiencing the metering issues of going wide. Ill basicly bracket exposure(-1,0,+1 essentially) to my eye regardless of what the on board meter says. Then you can go back and do the "HDR" deal or stack and layer them to fill it all in.

What body do you shoot with?

Also is that Nikon lens rectilinear?

rwpontius
06-27-2008, 09:17 AM
Those were shot with a D80 but when the eagles and barn owls were active at Farmington Bay I jumped the gun and bought a D300 for the higher frame rate. Generally, I use the D80 when hiking and the D300 for shooting out of the car and near the car.I had planned to get it in November but cold see a need at that time. Also Capture NX came with the body which "saved" a little more. I don't really have much in the way of photoshop skills but figured I would play around with a duplicate of the shot and see if I could add some appropriate color.
RP

waltny
06-30-2008, 11:10 AM
I love captureNX. My flow goes from viewNX>captureNX(1.3)>CS2. Here are a few from my tokina 12-24. You can see the distortion which I kinda like and shot it like this on purpose.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u25/waltny/eastcanyon6.jpg

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u25/waltny/eastcanyon5.jpg

R
06-30-2008, 11:21 AM
A tech note here: distortion results in straight lines appearing curved. Foreshortening is the effect of closer objects or parts of an object appearing larger than far away objects.

Mooseman70
06-30-2008, 12:29 PM
I love captureNX. My flow goes from viewNX>captureNX(1.3)>CS2. Here are a few from my tokina 12-24. You can see the distortion which I kinda like and shot it like this on purpose.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u25/waltny/eastcanyon6.jpg

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u25/waltny/eastcanyon5.jpg


Cool pics! Is this a ghost town, or???? I'd like to know the location.

Mooseman70
06-30-2008, 12:30 PM
(edit double post)

waltny
06-30-2008, 02:20 PM
A tech note here: distortion results in straight lines appearing curved. Foreshortening is the effect of closer objects or parts of an object appearing larger than far away objects.

Ill go with that, even the "pros" on nikoncafe use the term "distortion" when refering to the rectilinear effect of the tokina. Im now more the wiser.....

waltny
06-30-2008, 02:23 PM
Cool pics! Is this a ghost town, or???? I'd like to know the location.

close
The first one is just off the interstate in Morgan and the second is in Porterville UT just up the road on the way to East Cayon

ststephen
09-02-2010, 09:12 PM
I was searching for some info before an upcoming purchase of a wide-zoom for my Nikon D-90 and found this thread. So, I'm bumping it so ask about collective wisdom of DX wide-zoom lenses now.

I'm considering the following allong with their rough current prices .

Nikkor 12-24 f4 ($960)
Nikkor 10-24 f3.5-4.5 ($800)
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ($600)
Tokina 12-24 f4 II ($500)

Note that the last Tokina has an older model and a new model with "II" that has some upgrades to its optics.

So which would you guys pick and why? Price is a concern in that I wouldn't pay the Nikkor difference in price for only a minor increase in quality/reliability.

ibenick
09-02-2010, 09:17 PM
Judging solely by Summits portfolio I vote Tokina 11-16. I have a Canon 10-22mm f3.5-? and like it a lot but it was like $750.

CarpeyBiggs
09-02-2010, 09:22 PM
i've used the 11-16 for years, and i'm sure summit will concur. it's a great lens for the price.

ststephen
09-02-2010, 11:09 PM
Why do you guys like the 11-16 over the 12-24 Tokina? I would think the wider f-stop not that useful since with wide shots you often need deep depth of field. Also what I've read says it's not as sharp until you get to f7 or so. I like the wider range of focal length in the 12-24, though I suppose in practice one would be using it at the shorter lengths anyway. Not questioning your wisdom, just trying to understand/learn.

Thanks!

CarpeyBiggs
09-02-2010, 11:29 PM
2.8 aperture for sure is awesome. the exact opposite of depth of field is true. the wider, the less you need to stop down to achieve a larger depth of field. we use the 11-16 to shoot most of our night shots with wide aperture. but for general landscape, it is great as well. best lens flare characteristics i've ever had at that wide. i found it to be very sharp given how wide it is.

also, it's lighter i believe. 12-24 is designed for full frame. 11-16 is for a crop camera. smaller optics.

oldno7
09-03-2010, 04:15 AM
I have a 11-16 also. While I can't shoot like Dan and Bill, My experience with this lens has been that it is incredibly sharp, even wide open and the vibrance of color is great. Better than my "L" lens.
Shot this yesterday with said lens................

asdf
09-03-2010, 06:53 AM
The 11-16 is pretty damn sick and I love everything about it especially the flare.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2770/4169355681_c8e61b0e8b_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4370585148_bc92293ab1_z.jpg

ststephen
09-03-2010, 08:31 AM
Thanks guys. I'll be placing the order today.

Dan - interestingly it's not lighter even given the DX/Full Frame difference. Specs list the 12-24 20g lighter at 540g vs. 560g.

R
09-04-2010, 11:03 AM
I have a 11-16 also. While I can't shoot like Dan and Bill, My experience with this lens has been that it is incredibly sharp, even wide open and the vibrance of color is great. Better than my "L" lens.
Shot this yesterday with said lens................Brian Head, right? I got to go up there two years ago... http://richardbarron.net/galleries/plateau/brianhead/

oldno7
09-04-2010, 04:30 PM
Brian Head, right? I got to go up there two years ago... http://richardbarron.net/galleries/plateau/brianhead/
Yes, Brianhead. It sure has some nice views.

Ryebrye
09-07-2010, 01:27 PM
2.8 aperture for sure is awesome. the exact opposite of depth of field is true. the wider, the less you need to stop down to achieve a larger depth of field. we use the 11-16 to shoot most of our night shots with wide aperture. but for general landscape, it is great as well. best lens flare characteristics i've ever had at that wide. i found it to be very sharp given how wide it is.

also, it's lighter i believe. 12-24 is designed for full frame. 11-16 is for a crop camera. smaller optics.

Interesting. I've been mulling over it, but the thing that's made me almost decide on the Canon 10-22 over the Tokina was that I heard that the Tokina 11-16 flares like crazy and loses contrast if you are shooting into the sun (lots of internal reflection). My main application in addition to landscapes would be for shooting circular 360x180 panos - where you are very frequently going to have the sun in the shot - or shooting architectural panos you'll always have shots where you are shooting right at the light source.

Then again, Canon had to go and announce their 8-15 L fisheye - if that lens clocks in with a street price around $1k or so, I'll have a hard time keeping my fingers away from the "buy" button. I don't have a FF body, but on a crop it'd give me fullframe fisheye with some amazing glass - which is something I definitely want. (Taking a fisheye image and turning it into a rectilinear image in postprocessing is quite simple.)

Getting stars out of a lightsource is a factor of the number of blades in the aperture and stopping it down. [A good article about this phenomena and shooting holiday lights is here: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/view?permalink=photographing-holiday-lights ] The tokina 11-16 has 9 blades, and so you get 18 rays out of it. The rays out of the point light I'm not worried about - it's the flare I'm worried about. The flare is the part where you get reduced contrast and discoloration that spreads across the frame and moves around as you move the camera around. (You can see some of the flare in the false kiva shot summit42 posted - and in that shot it's not bad, but it's a pain when you have a couple shots overlapping with flare in different locations you have to mask out).

For single shots, that kind of thing is easily avoidable - just point your camera slightly differently or hold your hand up to block some light coming in from the edge - but shooting a spherical pano it's a real pain because it's in different spots in different positions so you have to go in and mask it out before you stitch it to make sure that spots with flare aren't included in the stitched image.

Dan - (or anyone else who has shot both), is the flare on the Canon any better than on the Tokina? Since the Tokina has 9-blades it will almost definitely have a better bokeh and have more points in the star around the light... the Canon will only have 6 points around a lightsource since it has 6 blades- but the points should be more defined with less blur.

For every application except for spherical panos, it seems that the Tokina has a slight edge and looks like a great lens - but I'm not a fan of flare (of the discoloration / contrast-lacking spot variety) so I'm mostly curious about that aspect.

CarpeyBiggs
09-07-2010, 03:47 PM
flare is subjective... what is "better?"

the tokina flares something lovely in my experience. but, for panos? you probably don't want it, since it will be different every time the angle changes. i shoot almost exclusively landscapes, and i would probably take the tokina over the 10-22, it's flare characteristics being on of it's highlights. of course, i always wanted to get the sun flare, and never did a detailed comparison between the two in that regard.

however, 10-22 is nice though too. i have used both extensively, and swapped them a couple of times. i really liked the 2.8 aperture, and of course, the price...

tmartenst
09-07-2010, 11:04 PM
Dan, what are you shooting with now? Do you use the Tokina on FF? If not, what do you use in it's place?

The closest I've got is 17-40.

CarpeyBiggs
09-07-2010, 11:41 PM
on the 5d, i used the 17-40 for a couple years. it is great, my favorite of all the WA lenses, but it is f4... unfortunately, i lost that lens when i dropped my camera in sandthrax couple years back. so i used the tokina at 16mm for most of the wide angle shots on my 5d, but it showed some vignetting. now i have a 5d with a 20 1.8 because i sold everything else. i shoot mainly on m4/3 now because it is so much smaller and lighter for backpacking... 5d only comes out when i'm close to my car.

mjn_slc
09-08-2010, 09:35 AM
I bought the Nikkor 12-24 earlier this summer for a Nikon. I love the wide angle and picture clarity. It's great for landscapes or if you take interior pictures and don't want flash. Here a few images for reference.

37243

37242

R
09-08-2010, 01:55 PM
For APS-sized sensors, I have nothing but praise for the Tokina 12-24...

http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2009/07/08/a-wide-angle-for-the-rest-of-us/

ststephen
01-07-2011, 03:26 PM
Thought I'd finally post something that I shot with this lens. This is an Arch in the Wadi Rum region of Jordan. I have some trip reports coming about our experiences hiking/scrambling in that area and around Petra.