I`ve narrowed it down to 3...

[ddbowdoin]

I'm convinced. I'm ordering that Tokina 11 - 16 for my Nikon D3200.

good choice...

I'm 100% about this lens, for the price it really is a strong choice. When I owned a FF D700 I rented the elusive Nikon 12-24, said to be the best UW on the market, was it better than the Tokina? Yes, but by such a marginal difference that it didn't justify the price difference. I sold my 700 off though, as an older camera I found the ISO performance to be only marginally better than a 7000, which the extra cash earned allowed me to invest in the 70-200 VRII... the best lens Nikon makes.

 

[Joshua&CalebDad]

good choice...

I'm 100% about this lens, for the price it really is a strong choice. When I owned a FF D700 I rented the elusive Nikon 12-24, said to be the best UW on the market, was it better than the Tokina? Yes, but by such a marginal difference that it didn't justify the price difference. I sold my 700 off though, as an older camera I found the ISO performance to be only marginally better than a 7000, which the extra cash earned allowed me to invest in the 70-200 VRII... the best lens Nikon makes.

Since you guys have me thinking...If I have the ability to rent the Nikon 12-24 ($50 for the week that we are in WDW) would it be a smart idea even though I already have my Nikon 18-55 and 35mm prime lens?

 

[everestnut]

Since you guys have me thinking...If I have the ability to rent the Nikon 12-24 ($50 for the week that we are in WDW) would it be a smart idea even though I already have my Nikon 18-55 and 35mm prime lens?

I don't shoot Nikon, but from what I've read......... Absolutely.

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

Tom Bricker has an awesome review of the Tokina over on his web page as well as some more pics to look at. I think I`m sold on the Tokina. Thanks ya`ll. Now they have a newer version of the lens available for preorder. ...better coating on the glass is the only difference I can tell.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Since you guys have me thinking...If I have the ability to rent the Nikon 12-24 ($50 for the week that we are in WDW) would it be a smart idea even though I already have my Nikon 18-55 and 35mm prime lens?

yes... although if you're shooting it on a cropped body it's not as an effective lens. But yes, it's still way better than that 18-55

 

[ddbowdoin]

Tom Bricker has an awesome review of the Tokina over on his web page as well as some more pics to look at. I think I`m sold on the Tokina. Thanks ya`ll. Now they have a newer version of the lens available for preorder. ...better coating on the glass is the only difference I can tell.

yeah, it does have some issues with flaring... but all lenses do if you point them towards the sun

 

[Joshua&CalebDad]

yes... although if you're shooting it on a cropped body it's not as an effective lens. But yes, it's still way better than that 18-55

I'll be using it on my new Nikon D5100, which I purchased about 2 weeks ago. Definately not a full frame body but I was hoping that the Nikon 12 - 24 would allow me to get some wide angle shots such as the train station when you enter into MK, Cindy's Castle, and nice wide angle shots at the resorts.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I'll be using it on my new Nikon D5100, which I purchased about 2 weeks ago. Definately not a full frame body but I was hoping that the Nikon 12 - 24 would allow me to get some wide angle shots such as the train station when you enter into MK, Cindy's Castle, and nice wide angle shots at the resorts.

on the 5100 it's an effective 18-36 mm lens... but optically speaking it's a very sharp lens, much better than the 18-55. So for 50 bucks, it's a go in my book... considering it's a 1700 dollar lens

 

[ddbowdoin]

I'll be using it on my new Nikon D5100, which I purchased about 2 weeks ago. Definately not a full frame body but I was hoping that the Nikon 12 - 24 would allow me to get some wide angle shots such as the train station when you enter into MK, Cindy's Castle, and nice wide angle shots at the resorts.

ok, I have though this over... you may want to pass. IMHO it's an awesome lens, but does the 50 bucks include insurance?

the front element on that lens is huge, if you aren't careful you could crack it. It doesn't accept front filters so it's something to consider.

 

[Joshua&CalebDad]

ok, I have though this over... you may want to pass. IMHO it's an awesome lens, but does the 50 bucks include insurance?

the front element on that lens is huge, if you aren't careful you could crack it. It doesn't accept front filters so it's something to consider.

The cost is actually $46.50 and does include insurance. I was planning on renting the lens from Kingdom Camera rentals in Orlando. They are supposed to drop off and pick up right there at your resort.

http://www.kingdomcamerarentals.com/category/19_43/Lenses/Ultra-Wide-Angle.php

Any additional thoughts?

 

[ddbowdoin]

The cost is actually $46.50 and does include insurance. I was planning on renting the lens from Kingdom Camera rentals in Orlando. They are supposed to drop off and pick up right there at your resort.

http://www.kingdomcamerarentals.com/category/19_43/Lenses/Ultra-Wide-Angle.php

Any additional thoughts?

yeah, I mean if its 46 bucks and insurance AND they drop off at your resort then why not... like I said, it may be same focal length as your other lens but it will surpass and supersede the quality exponentially.

considering the cost of the lens, 46 beans to shoot disney world is awesome... it's not like your just renting to rent and ps, that an awesome price.

I rented the 70-200 vrII before I bought for a wedding, ran me like 125 for 2 days

 

[Joshua&CalebDad]

yeah, I mean if its 46 bucks and insurance AND they drop off at your resort then why not... like I said, it may be same focal length as your other lens but it will surpass and supersede the quality exponentially.

considering the cost of the lens, 46 beans to shoot disney world is awesome... it's not like your just renting to rent and ps, that an awesome price.

I rented the 70-200 vrII before I bought for a wedding, ran me like 125 for 2 days

Then I'm sold. I have been on and off the fence about this lens for a while. As always thanks for the feedback.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Then I'm sold. I have been on and off the fence about this lens for a while. As always thanks for the feedback.

just do me a huge favor... tripod, ISO 100, bulb with a cable release (like 30 bucks), and shoot the hell out of illuminations with that lens

shame it doesnt take front filters, a ND would do well. It might take butt end filters but since you're renting that would be foolish to buy

 

[Joshua&CalebDad]

just do me a huge favor... tripod, ISO 100, bulb with a cable release (like 30 bucks), and shoot the hell out of illuminations with that lens

shame it doesnt take front filters, a ND would do well. It might take butt end filters but since you're renting that would be foolish to buy

I have the tripod, ISO 100 is no problem, however I have a remote shutter release and not a cabled one. Will it really make that much of a difference? If so, maybe I can also rent the cable shutter release.

I went with the remote so that I could take family shots that I am in.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I have the tripod, ISO 100 is no problem, however I have a remote shutter release and not a cabled one. Will it really make that much of a difference? If so, maybe I can also rent the cable shutter release.

I went with the remote so that I could take family shots that I am in.

yeah, I hear that a lot. People like being in the shots lol

Here is my beef with the wireless version, somewhere in between clicking ... aka a "half suppress" is supposed to autofocus the lens. The wireless is cheap, and I can't find that halfway point for the life of me. I just got the wired version for 30 bucks, I think its better for some reason.

Also, the wired version has a lock... I shoot sometimes upwards of 10 minute exposures when shooting star fields.

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

yeah, it does have some issues with flaring... but all lenses do if you point them towards the sun

Do you think it`s worth waiting for and also worth the extra $40.00?

 

[CP_alum08]

I have the same set up... trust me, it's a little more money at 600 to 650 depending on time / vendor but it's a great lens. It's a 100% landscape lens though, people and UW's are a rough combo unless they are 100% dead center of the frame

So you mean exactly like the photo you posted comparing the difference between a fish and UWA? Putting an object in the center of the frame is going to show little distortion versus putting a straight object at the edge will show lots. I assume you knew that and chose those images to make your point, but just know it didn't go unnoticed.

 

[ddbowdoin]

So you mean exactly like the photo you posted comparing the difference between a fish and UWA? Putting an object in the center of the frame is going to show little distortion versus putting a straight object at the edge will show lots. I assume you knew that and chose those images to make your point, but just know it didn't go unnoticed.

I can certainly pull more examples, the 8mm image shown has extreme distortion just off center of the frame... which cannot be said for the 11mm. There are enough lines in the 11mm image off center to shnow the difference that 2mm makes when talking about UWA. Again, this is for landscape photography... anything with people with either focal length is whacky because "we know" what a human is supposed to look like.

It's manageable but it requires more work on the post end to work out the distortion

 

[Allen C]

Do you think it`s worth waiting for and also worth the extra $40.00?

If you'll be able to get it before your December trip then I say it should be worth the wait and the extra cost.

I might even sell my old version and get this new one.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Do you think it`s worth waiting for and also worth the extra $40.00?

I haven't seen the new version and coatings can always be tricky, as for the extra price I have no idea... 40 bucks is a small upgrade considering the overall cost of the lens. But if you don't need it right away might as well wait.