AF-P DX Nikkor 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 G VR - What Say You ??
Jan 15, 2019 02:21:14 #
racerrich3 wrote:
first was the Nikon 10-24 $900. then the Nikon 10-20 $600. I went for the...Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 $_00. just my $0.02. lol
I have the Tokina 11-16 and the Nikon 10-20. The Tokina has better optics and is much faster but's too heavy. I travel with the Nikon and use the Tokina locally for interiors, where the f2.8 matters. If I owned neither and could buy only one I'd buy the Nikon. Also the Tokina is good on a full frame camera only at 16mm, whereas the Nikon is good between 13 and 18mm.
Jan 16, 2019 22:08:17 #
gjgallager
Loc: North Central CT & Space Coast Florida
I bought this lens for my D5600. Took it and my Tamron 16-300 on a trip to Italy. I used the 10-20 95% of the time, it's a nice lens especially for urban shots, lots of cathedrals etc. Greg.
Jan 22, 2019 00:54:59 #
thanx for the info pmackd. :-) I also realized I made a price type-o. the Nikon 10-20 is $300+, I put my Tokina price down.
Jan 22, 2019 01:10:23 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
Be sure to get the VR version. Despite what some will tell you VR comes in very handy on a wide angle lens. Both for landscape when you want f16 and iso 100 without needing a tripod and for indoor shots on travel where flash is prohibited.
The price difference is only $50.
The price difference is only $50.
Jan 22, 2019 11:13:23 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
IDguy wrote:
Be sure to get the VR version. Despite what some will tell you VR comes in very handy on a wide angle lens. Both for landscape when you want f16 and iso 100 without needing a tripod and for indoor shots on travel where flash is prohibited.
The price difference is only $50.
The price difference is only $50.
Interestingly there may only be a VR version of this lens.
Why they make and include in packages a non VR AF-P 70-300 escapes me.
Jan 22, 2019 11:29:17 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
Looked at the Nikon lens, but ended up with the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 after a price drop last summer. I see them on Amazon for $400. I've used this lens for landscapes and astrophotography and general indoor stuff. I am very pleased with the results. It does have some barrel distortion and vignetting, but both are easily taken care of in LR. I understand a lens has to be f/3.0 to be considered fast, so its not quite there, but it is much better than the Nikon you are considering. As far as VR goes, its really not needed at 10-20mm in good light. For longer shutter times (landscapes and sky shots), you will want to use a tripod.
Jan 22, 2019 12:39:23 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
Strodav wrote:
Looked at the Nikon lens, but ended up with the Si... (show quote)
Not needing a tripod is one reason the VR Nikon is much better. Keep in mind for landscapes you want f16 or higher, so a faster lens is of no value. And you also want ISO 100, so demanded exposure times can be relatively long. And many times you need to hike for landscape shots and will be on rough surfaces, so a tripod ia a PITA.
If also using the lens for indoor shots on travel faster lens is a little help. But you still want some dof so not so much. And today’s cameras do well at higher ISO.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.