New lens

[rwpontius]

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]

Wow! Your lake blanche picture is fantastic!

[sparker1]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[R]

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]

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.

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

[Mooseman70]

(edit double post)

[waltny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i've used the 11-16 for years, and i'm sure summit will concur. it's a great lens for the price.

[ststephen]

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]

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]

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]

The 11-16 is pretty damn sick and I love everything about it especially the flare.

[ststephen]

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]

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/