Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: clementtn on July 27, 2012, 01:16:57 am
-
Hi, I'm new to this forum :) I have been into photography as a hobby for a couple of years now but I'm quite new to landscape photography. I am thinking about investing in a UWA lens and GND/Pol filters but I need your opinion on what you think would be a better choice.
1) Sigma 8-16 + Lucroit 8-16 adapter & Filter Holder + HiTech 165mm GND filters
+ 77mm Threaded Adapter Ring (for my Nikon 17-55)
Pros: Sigma is much much wider than the Nikon
Cons: The lucroit system is very expensive
2) Nikon 12-24 + 77mm Adapter Ring & Lee Filter Filter Holder + Lee Filters
Pros: Lee system is cheaper & easier to keep/manage 165mm vs 100mm
The filters and system would cost less
Weatherproofed
Cons: Not as wide as the 8mm
Is option 1 really worth the extra cost & inconvenience?
I've considered other lenses as well but weatherproofing might come in handy as I intend to bring it on trekking trips in the future.
I know the 8-16mm isn't weatherproof but I heard its built quite well but because its so wide I'm gonna close one eye and take the risk.
I've tried the nikon 10-24 but I don't feel comfortable using it because it feels very "plasticy". I agree that its an excellent lens in terms of IQ and build for others but its not for me.
Thanks!
-
Hello,
My recommendation would be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X.
It has a excellent write up on Photozone plus the ability to take filters.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/666-tokina1116f28eos
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
I have owned a number of Tokina's over the past decades and the build quality of these lenses are second to none.
IMO
Cheers
Simon
-
The Sigma 8-16 is one of the best ultrawides, ever. The Tokina 11-16 is pretty lame in comparison (I've owned two of the Tokinas and gave up). Why exactly do you think you need a filter holder for an ultrawide lens?
-
I second the praise for the Sigma 8-16mm. This is a sharp and fun lens. I too have pondered the GND filter question. There's got to be a DIY adapter solution, I just haven't got around to designing it. There are some advantages to single-shot landscapes vs multiples and blending - waving grass in foreground, moving animals or birds, etc, moving tugs (not moving all that well due to the drought).
-
Hello,
My recommendation would be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X.
It has a excellent write up on Photozone plus the ability to take filters.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/666-tokina1116f28eos
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
I have owned a number of Tokina's over the past decades and the build quality of these lenses are second to none.
IMO
Cheers
Simon
Thanks for the recommendation. Was considering this as well but the 12-24 is just an mm away and has weatherproofing so I was leaning towards that choice though I have not completely ruled out this option yet. My local camera shop just got stock of the version 2, will go try it out before I make a decision.
-
The Sigma 8-16 is one of the best ultrawides, ever. The Tokina 11-16 is pretty lame in comparison (I've owned two of the Tokinas and gave up). Why exactly do you think you need a filter holder for an ultrawide lens?
I want to use ND/GND filters
-
I second the praise for the Sigma 8-16mm. This is a sharp and fun lens. I too have pondered the GND filter question. There's got to be a DIY adapter solution, I just haven't got around to designing it. There are some advantages to single-shot landscapes vs multiples and blending - waving grass in foreground, moving animals or birds, etc, moving tugs (not moving all that well due to the drought).
This might be of interest to you
http://www.stockholmviews.com/sigma_8-16/sigma-8-16mm-filters.html
They have diy and ready made solutions for mounting filters on the 8-16mm.
-
Well Sigma must have come a long way since the 12-24 and 15-30 I had a few years ago. They were very soft and had tons of distortion. The 12-24 Nikkor has such a fantastic reputation that I doubt there is any comparison. I would want the option to test the Sigma's. I shoot lots of landscapes and very few wide angle lenses are up to the task of enough detail and sharpness to the corners. I don't think I'd compromise on a lens because of it's filter options.
Test test test and you will know what you finally choose is the best choice. I know it's not always easy, but it's worth it in the long run.
-
Actually the Sigma 12-24 has hardly any distortion, the only problem is finding a copy that is not soft.
Nikon's 14-24 has a lot more distortion(fixable in post) but is nice and sharp on my D3x anyway.