I just checked and the original DX lens has gone down to $600.00 and the newer DX-II version is at $740.00. Amazon and B@H. Apparently it`s been released in Japan to very favorable reviews.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
I`ve narrowed it down to 3...
- Thread starter Grumpy-Fan
- Start date
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
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.
You guys realize you're talking about two different lenses, right?
The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 is a DX lens that accepts filters. It's a good lens, but nothing earth-shattering. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (pictured above) is the best wide angle lens on the market for full frame cameras. They aren't even really comparable, and someone using DX shouldn't bother with the 14-24.
It sounds like you've already made your decision, but my vote would be for the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I might look into the newer version (haven't used it myself), as flare when shooting into the sun is really bad with the Tokina.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
didn't even notice the 12 over the 14. I'm just used to dealing with pro line glass.
As for someone not using it on DX, eh... I don't know. Sure, the effective focal length as an UWA isn't there but the optics and performance still smoke any consumer level DX lens out there. Even at 14 it's still an effective 21mm lens.
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
I've used both the Tokina 11-16mm and Nikon 14-24mm on a D7000. Based upon my experience, I'd take the Tokina 11-16mm on DX over the Nikon 14-24mm, especially when taking price into account (the Nikon is ~3x the cost of the Tokina). The extra 3mm is pretty substantial, and the IQ difference on DX between the two lenses was not that substantial.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
oh yeah, completely agree for a purchase... we were talking about a rental here though.
If you didn't have any intention of ever upgrading to an FX body then I'd still go with the Tokina. I own it myself.
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
Ah, rental. Tough decision in that case. I'd still probably go with the Tokina, just because of those 3mm. It may not seem like much, but on a wide angle lens, 3mm is a lot. Then again, I'm a wide angle junkie.
The 14-24mm is my absolute favorite lens (although I'm loving the 70-200 2.8 VR more and more), but I think it's one of those lenses you really have to have FX to appreciate.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
the 70-200 VRII is my favorite lens and my weapon of choice, but not really at Disney. An absolute must on all my wedding work, just wish it was lighter!
Since I first posted this thread my final 3 has changed drastically. Thanks to all the information from you guys and alot of reading and research i think I have a new 3. What do ya`ll think about these 3?
Tamron Af 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
It kind of blows my $500.00 budget all to hell but I want some good pictures. I feel like all my bases will be covered by these.
Tamron Af 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
It kind of blows my $500.00 budget all to hell but I want some good pictures. I feel like all my bases will be covered by these.
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
Are you choosing one of those three, or getting all of them? If it's all of them, then yes you have your bases pretty well covered and with good lenses. If you're just choosing one then it's a harder decision. If it were me I'd probably go for the 17-50. I have a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 and I love it, it's my most used lens.
All three.
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
Those three lenses give you an incredibly solid lineup. Good luck with them! I'm assuming you read my reviews of all three?
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
Care to extend that budget even a little more?
240 dollars or so for a pretty decent micro lens... is it as nice as the 105mm, no... but 800 bucks cheaper
Also, at 40mm it's a decent prime.
You`re killing me. When I started this post I was at a $500.00 max. Since then I`ve gone up to $1,700.00. Why not make an even 2k right? Is that the = to the 40mm pancake lens Canon just put out?Care to extend that budget even a little more?
240 dollars or so for a pretty decent micro lens... is it as nice as the 105mm, no... but 800 bucks cheaper
Also, at 40mm it's a decent prime.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
No, because this offers a 1 to 1 macro ability. The close focus on this is downright amazing considering the price tag. I got this as a gift and almost instantly wrote it off as cheap then I found myself taking ring shots at weddings and could not believe the results. At 240 it's an amazing deal!
I got the Tameron 17-50 a couple of weeks ago and I`ve taken some good pics with it. So far I love the lens( still learning it.). I just got the Tokina 11-16 today, I can`t wait to try it out. It looks like the Sigma is going to have to wait. I`m going with those two and the 50mm/1.8 for the trip (leaving in 37 days). I`m Amazed by the feel and overall difference in quality between these and the kit lenses(night and day). The 50 feels like a piece of crap compared to them but I have used it alot and really like the results.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
The Tokina has some nice weight to it... really well built lens as well