Good Lens for Landscape Photography (Page 2): Exactly, one can also do some very interesting things with the fish eye lens, not my cup of tea and I don't own one but there are many who...

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

GC likes NIKON wrote:

I think it depends upon your "style", where you are and the effects that you want to create. Certainly standing on a mountaintop in China looking down at miles of the Great Wall you would not use a 10-20.

Exactly, one can also do some very interesting things with the fish eye lens, not my cup of tea and I don't own one but there are many who think the fish eye is the greatest thing since sliced bread (or light beer).

RON 11 Loc: Pittsburgh

Tokina 11-16 is a very good lens.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I don't own, but have used the Tokina 11-16 and I can't imagine any of the lenses listed in this string being any sharper. Great lens but heavy. I think it must weigh as much as my 28-300 Nikon lens. I use the Tokina 12-24 and find it adequately sharp but I would trade it for the 11-16 if my main camera system was still the 300 Nikons. I went full frame about a year ago so don't really want to invest more in lenses that aren't full frame. I would like to see Tokina come out with this range lens designed for FF, or Sigma do the same for their 10-20 which also gets really strong reviews.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

GC likes NIKON wrote:

I think it depends upon your "style", where you are and the effects that you want to create. Certainly standing on a mountaintop in China looking down at miles of the Great Wall you would not use a 10-20.

Not so fast...shot with a Sigma 8-16 at 8mm...

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

The Sigma IS sharper than the Tokina, especially the borders. I've done direct comparisons. However the difference is not great over most of the frame. The Sigma, however is must better at flare resistance and goes considerably wider.

Tokina 11mm @f5.6

Sigma 11mm @f5.6

Sigma 8mm @f5.6

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

kymarto wrote:

The Sigma IS sharper than the Tokina, especially the borders. I've done direct comparisons. However the difference is not great over most of the frame. The Sigma, however is must better at flare resistance and goes considerably wider.

Good comparison. If you look at the upper tier of the pagoda all the way to the right, you would be hard pressed to tell that one lens is sharper than the other. In other areas of the shot the Sigma does look sharper but I think that is due largely to lack of contrast caused by the flair. Contrast goes a long way in making a shot look sharp. I think the extra 3mm in width is a definite plus as well as the ability of the Sigma to control flair. I was comparing the Tokina to the Sigma 10-20. I'm not familiar with the 8-16 Sigma but it looks like a winner. How heavy is that lens -- more like the 10-20 or the Tokina?

country Loc: back woods

Saleavitt10 wrote:

I want to work on my landscape photography skills. I have primarily been doing mostly wildlife photography. Recently won a Nikon D7100. Great camera. Lots to learn coming from a D90. I know most landscape photographers use a wide angle lens to maximize DOF. What would be a good wide angle lens for me to purchase get my feet wet?

I have always gotten good advise from this group. Thanks in advance!

tokina 11-16/2.8......

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

You can't really compare sharpness from those small files. I have full Rez files that I can post if you want. The Sigma is very noticeably sharper in the corners, but perhaps my Tokina is slightly decentered. The lens is somewhere between the Tokina and 10-20 in weight. The 8-16 is much smaller in diameter than the Tokina, though, so it is not such a struggle in a camera bag. I always suggest people read the reviews of UWAs at photozone.de.

country Loc: back woods

kymarto wrote:

You can't really compare sharpness from those small files. I have full Rez files that I can post if you want. The Sigma is very noticeably sharper in the corners, but perhaps my Tokina is slightly decentered. The lens is somewhere between the Tokina and 10-20 in weight. The 8-16 is much smaller in diameter than the Tokina, though, so it is not such a struggle in a camera bag. I always suggest people read the reviews of UWAs at photozone.de.

in your comparisions, you clearly didn't use a tripod, and the camera wasn't in the same place on the two photos... as seen where the building is cut off in one and not the other, and in bottom left roof of other bldg. is in one pic and not other... this could have everything to do with the flare in one pic and not the other one as the sun is clearly at different angles to lens in the two...

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

No, sorry, it has nothing to do with it. The angle is different only by several degrees, which changes the flare artifacts by several degrees at best. The Tokina lens is notorious for its tendency to flare, and the new model is just as bad as the old one, new coatings notwithstanding. Read the review at lenstip.com.

Actually the Nikon 10-24 is better than either of these two lenses. The Sigma has a bright comet, which is out of frame in this example. But at least it is small and does not degrade the overall contrast. The Tokina not only has this huge comet, but wide bright partial rings that can be seen in this image but are also present sometimes when the comet is not, and their size makes them not only very evident, but nearly impossible to eliminate in post.

This is also a big problem in the 14-24, which is why I keep the 8-16 for cases like these.

coondog Loc: Lost in Vermont

Nikon 16-85mm is excellent for landscape work. I'e seen them used for around $350.00

PVR8 Loc: Raleigh, NC

Very nice shot!

kymarto wrote:

Not so fast...shot with a Sigma 8-16 at 8mm...