Save & earn with MPB this Christmas; trade-in and buy pre-loved

Best of Nikkors 17-35/2.8 and 12-24DX/4


CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
13 Mar 2006 2:25AM
Hi,

which is a best for the landscape photography?

(in the wide angle, distortions, crop-factor, and sharpness terms)

THANKS.

Malik & Mary
chrisfroud 16 521
13 Mar 2006 3:27AM
These are both very high quality Nikon lenses but offer very different fields of view and it really depends what you want to do with them. Are they for a digital camera? In which case only the 12-24 gives a real ultra wide angle. Again, with digital, you could consider the 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens which is cheaper. Personally, I chose the Sigma 10-20 instead of the Nikon 12-24 because it is wider, half the price, great build/optical quality and accepts filters. Also, the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 lens that comes with most digital kits is of great quality and I'd only consider the 17-35/17-55 if you really need the extra max aperture or build quality.

Chris
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
13 Mar 2006 3:52AM
Thank you Chris!

Yes, they are for the digital camera - FUJI S3Pro.
First of all, the detail level(sharpness) are more significant for us(however, the build quality is unrelevant).

There is a some of our "scientific investigations":
1. SIGMA 10-20 - it is a soft lens, unfortunately.

2. Nikon 12-24 - more sharp, but it have a bit CA and significant distortions.

3. Nikon 17-35. It seems like a "free" from the all of "negative" above, but not A SO WIDE!

Malik & Mary.
chrisfroud 16 521
13 Mar 2006 3:57AM
Well, I've never actually used either of them so I can't comment personally. There's quite a few reviews on the web of these lenses which might include MTF charts which will allow you to compare the sharpness of all the lenses if this is a particular concern.
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
13 Mar 2006 3:59AM
Thanks, anyway Smile Smile
AllyBoy 15 92 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2006 4:02AM
I own a Sigma 10-20mm,
Although i have only had it a few months, i havent used it that much!
I think for the money its fantastic!
But a word of warning!- Its so very wide!!!!
(hense why the lack of use)

Allen
strawman 18 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2006 4:05AM
I have a Sigma 10-20, and it is not soft. Try reading the sites review on it. Perhaps you got a duff one. I think AP commented on how sharp it was.

John
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
13 Mar 2006 4:14AM
OK , Folks!
We have not any pro/cons against SIGMA 10-20, really.
However, according this Ken Rockwell LINK review....
So, we say "soft" for SIGMA..... WE ARE NOT RIGHT?

Fortunately, if Ken review is wrong we will be happy with SIGMA 10-20!

Malik & Mary.
13 Mar 2006 4:15AM
I would say go with the 17-35 if you can afford it, its a really nice lens.
chrisfroud 16 521
13 Mar 2006 4:19AM
I've been very pleased with my Sigma 10-20. I don't believe that it is soft, and have generally found it to be very low distortion and I've seen no chromatic aberration. Where did you hear that it is soft?

Again, I personally think it comes down to what you want to use it for? For landscape, I use the Sigma 10 - 20 and the Nikon 18 - 70 and find both very useful. In the end, the Sigma won for me because of the ease of using filters and I wouldn't be without my ND grads for landscape work.

Again, I must note that I haven't made any scientific study. I just stuck it on the camera and took some photos where I have found the Sigma images sharpen up nicely in post-processing and I've made some very nice 12x16 prints.

Chris.
strawman 18 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
13 Mar 2006 4:22AM
Unfortunatley Uncle Ken, as has been documented more than once, is talking out his a***. Did he actualy use the lens, or are his Nikon only filters too firmly glued to his eyes. Sorry but after reading some of the rubish he spouts I suggest you try a real lens review. Try getting the one from AP in the UK.

3 year warranty, so the Sigma has the shortest, not in the UK at least. I could not see any more than 1 year in the equivalent Canon. Do Nikon offer a 3 year warranty?

Focusing noise? Its got HSM, all year is a slight noise as it snaps to focus. Otpical quality, again did he actualy use the lens.

Build quality. Sorry cannot see what is wrong.
chrisfroud 16 521
13 Mar 2006 4:30AM
I have to agree with Strawman here. Dear Ken often spouts complete crap - such gems as jpeg is better quality than raw.

Focusing noise? What focusing noise? Sometimes I don't even realise its focused already. I find the focusing noise quiter than many Nikon lenses I own! And anyway, how often do you need to focus a lens used for landscape? Normally small aperture, sat on a tripod with a still subject - I focus once then leave it on manual!!

Build quality? Apart from the **** lens cap which I've replaced I've had no problems. Its better built than most cheap Nikons.

Chris
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
13 Mar 2006 4:38AM
Chris,

Yes, we want to go to the more cheaper lenses from SIGMA too. However, after the Ken Rockwell review we was a very dissapointed about it. Sad Sad

John, what is "AP" where we can read about? Please, give us a link...
chrisfroud 16 521
13 Mar 2006 4:43AM
You could also look at:

this review or the ephotozine reivew
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
13 Mar 2006 4:49AM
Many thanks! Wink Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.