Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
I just want it to be as good as the 12-24mm. The reason why I'm not getting the 12-24mm is the f/4. I need a low light performer, and someone actually mentioned that the t stop of that f/4 is probably not even an f/4. So f/2.8 is very appealing to me.
I'll see how it goes. If it's bad (hope not), I might just get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
So maybe I should wait as well. -- The Tamron 17-50 mm is on my shortlist anyway.
Tokina 4/12-24 mm (or 2.8/11-16 mm?) / Tamron 2.8/17-50 mm / Nikkor 4.5-5.6/70-300 VR -- that's my plan so far, together with the D300. (Plus 2.8/24 mm, 2/35 mm, 1.4/50 mm and Sigma 2.8/50 mm Macro which I already have.)
.
What do you expect from it? Is it said to be (even) better than the now ATX f 4/12-24 mm? (Which probably is the best wide-angle zoom for Nikon DSLRs.)
.
I've had the Nikon 12-24mm for a couple of years and just love it, but the Tokina 10-17mm is an actual fisheye. Very well reviewed by Popular Photography and others since its release. Specific applications I have in mind for it include those early sunrises and late sunsets that extend up and behind you and those close quarters landscapes where the effect of the terrain is around you beyond the capture of a normal wideangle. Just another tool for the toolbox for exploring my favorite subjects.
__________________
Doing my duty . . . . the way I see it.
"The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true."
Mark Twain
The 12-24mm is definitely more affordable and already proven - but really, if that 11-16mm can be as good (not much distortion at wide, sharp and contrasty, etc...) that would be one hell of a lens and definitely worth the extra they're asking for.
I've read that considering the short coverage (11-16mm), it might very well perform almost as good as a prime. If there's no delay, we are probably only 2-3 months away from the release date, so if I were you, I'd wait a bit more and see how it goes.
I don't think I'll be getting a new body soon, but if you're getting a D300, imagine the possibility that opens up for you if you combine that 11-16mm f/2.8 and the high ISO performance of D300 - a whole new limit in low light wide angle shots!
I just want it to be as good as the 12-24mm. The reason why I'm not getting the 12-24mm is the f/4. I need a low light performer, and someone actually mentioned that the t stop of that f/4 is probably not even an f/4. So f/2.8 is very appealing to me.
I'll see how it goes. If it's bad (hope not), I might just get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
I'm wondering how much the extra stop matters for such wide angles -- can't you handhold down to like 1/10th, maybe even 1/5th at those lengths?
I'm wondering how much the extra stop matters for such wide angles -- can't you handhold down to like 1/10th, maybe even 1/5th at those lengths?
Best,
-Jason
Result of handholding 1/5th might not be that great of course, compared to if I could take it at say, 1/50th. Also the thing is, slow shutter is a bit annoying when you take candid stuff like people doing what they are currently doing. I'm planning to use the ultra wide more for street/people photography and night shots, so fast one will help me a bit. If I shot scenery/architecture most of the time, I'd get the 12-24mm f/4 straight away.
