daldds Loc: NYC

Ever think of learning how to merge photos?

Haydon

You could always use your existing lens with a tripod and stitch several frames in post.

jims203 Loc: Connecticut

I have the same camera and Tokina lens. It is very sharp and really takes in the view. I was surprised at the sharpness.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

I have the Tokina 11-16 and I like the wide angle for certain but not every landscape shot. As CO said this particular lens can produce chromatic abberation around dark subjects with a lighter background. In Colorado you may not need the wider angle but in southern Illinois when I'm hiking yards away from limestone bluffs the wide angle comes in very handy. You may buy one and rarely use it or you may love it. I, personally, will always have one.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Couldn't agree more!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You may be disappointed down the road. There are aspects that you will see later that are masked by the novelty of a huge angle of view. I would rent and not buy one as others have suggested. Or buy used, so that you won't take such a hit when you sell it later.

There is the "honeymoon factor" that happens after purchase - one can't seem to get enough of the ultra wide point of view. For a bunch of weeks one leaves the lens on the camera and shoots everything with it - exploring a novel and very different perspective. Then the honeymoon is over, almost as quickly as it appears. The ultra wide perspective together with the extension distortion, volume anamorphosis, barrel distortion, CA, flare (in some cases), and on smaller sensor cameras (<full frame), distant details get "mushed" together, so a stand of trees looks fake, as if the leaves were painted with a broad brush. At more or less normal viewing distances one might not notice, but up close it is hard to ignore.

I'm not saying that a 10mm lens on a cropped sensor camera or a 14mm lens on a full frame camera is automatically a bad thing. I've used both. They can lend an interesting point of view where there is sky or interesting foreground elements involved. But to keep verticals vertical, one must keep the camera level. If you tilt the camera up to minimize foreground for a more interesting composition, or to capture more sky, then verticals begin to converge - which is referred to as keystoning.

There are only two solutions to this and both involve loss of pixels and or image width. First one can correct this "keystone" effect by applying adjustments in post processing. Doing so involves expanding the top of an image, which often ends up reducing height and overall horizontal angle of view. The other solution involves keeping the camera level and cropping the top and/or bottom of the image for compositional considerations.

All too often, at least at first, the old adage that when the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer the tendency is to treat everything like a nail. Maslow and other behaviorists describe this cognitive bias as "the law of the instrument" - an "over-reliance on a familiar", or in this case a new, tool. Ultra-wide lenses are actually highly specialized tools, and only appropriate in a handful of situations.

If standing on a roadside viewpoint or a ledge trying to take a picture of a mountain range, the last tool I would reach for would be an ultra-wide lens.

It is commonplace among experienced landscape photographers using digital cameras to go in the opposite direction - to use a longer lens and stitch a panorama. This is a good article that shows how to get that "ultra wide" view without an ultra wide lens. Pretty much every "unique" and sometimes undesirable characteristic of wide and very wide angle lenses is eliminated. It shows that even a tripod is not necessary to do panorama shooting - all that is necessary is to ensure that you have as many images you need to capture the scene, overlapping at least 1/3 of the image next to it. I generally use 1/2.

https://petapixel.com/2016/10/27/stitching-panorama-forget-wide-angle-lens-home/

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

11 is quite a bit wider than 18. I think you would find it very useful.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I would think your 18-55, with a field of view of 27-82 mm should fit the bill for your trip to the Rockies.

JoeC7100 Loc: Rhode Island

Hello Tino:

Certainly I cannot speak with as much technical knowledge or experience as others on this site I consider myself a weekend hack with a love for photography toys!

I have the same setup. The Tokina takes an excellent picture but to be honest I do not find myself reaching for it all that often. What else do you have in your bag. Perhaps something with a bit more reach to pull in some wildlife or other interesting shots that the wider angle would lose. My advice would be to rent that lens and perhaps a longer one and play with them for a week and see which one you enjoy more. Enjoy the trip

Good Luck - Joe

edwdickinson Loc: Ardmore PA

Rent one if it is not something you are going to continue to use. I usually rent from Lensrentals.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I doubt it. The only travel situation where I wished I had a wider lens was at Horseshoe Bend, and I still got good shots with the 18-55.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

No simple answers here, Tino. Don't know where you live and how it compares to the SWEEPING vistas of the Rockies. My first trip out west my widest lens was 28mm FF (compares to your 18mm on your Nikon). Got some shots I liked but Nothing here on the East Coast could prepare me for what I found out west. As soon as I got back home I bought wider lenses. So it really depends on what you like in your landscapes. For example:
This was at 28mm --- https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2021/1/27/828744-scope_peak_death_valley_np.jpg
These were at wider MMs ---
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2021/1/27/829368-sunset_bryce_canyon_np.jpg
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2021/1/27/826145-yellow_mounds_badlands_np.jpg
So, what's your pleasure?

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

My photography is mainly used for travel and I had a Tokina 12-28 f/4 which was used on D7000 & D7100 and it was a nice little lens but lacked stabilization and f/4 was not always fast enough for interiors, at least for me. I now have a Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR that I use with a D750 occasionally for non travel shots. As others have said I don’t use it much but it really was a treat when used vertically for the narrow alleys and canals in Venice. I now mainly use M4/3 for travel now but I still have an 8-18 f/2.8-4 (16-36 equiv) in my messenger bag for such occasions. My standard lens for 90% of photography is a 24-120 f2.8-4 equiv. I could make that work for most any event except night scenes or very dark interiors in which case I use a 32 mm equiv f/1.4 lens. You probably don’t “need” a wide angle lens but if you don’t mind toting it for just in case scenarios or the additional costs it is nice to have. Good luck.

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

For landscapes ultra-wide lenses will display your backgrounds way to far away. They are designed for getting tight spaces into the picture. My opinion is to take panoramas in order to display vast landscapes. One article which really helped me to better use ultra-wide lenses is below. You should really get close to your subject for impact.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

here's a video on creating a large pano.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dBSLPixiU4