I searched past threads about the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and didn't find what I was looking for.
I was thinking of buying the 16-35 f/4 but decided my 16-85 covers this range with very good quality. What I don't have is a lens for taking some wide landscape shots, so the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED looks interesting.
Does anyone know if the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED can use the full resolution of the D7000? Is the lens still as popular as when it was first introduced, or have flaws been discovered.
I no longer shoot DX but, when I did I loved this lens. Some pretty strong distortion at and near 10mm which is not unusual and easily corrected in PP. However, you might look at Thom Hogan's appraisal of it and also look at the Sigma 10-20 (which Thom likes), or, even the newer 8-16. Both are a lot cheaper and get very good marks. Some very experienced shooters here like both Sigma's. Either would complement your very fine 16-85 nicely. I have the 16-35 which is excellent, but, not all that wide on DX.
Sat 09-Jul-11 03:38 PM | edited Sat 09-Jul-11 03:48 PM by J_Harris
Thanks everyone for the replies and the Sigma recommendations. I have searched everywhere online and local and can't find the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED in stock. So even if I wanted to stick with Nikon that may not be possible. I'll have to give the Sigmas some serious research and consideration.
This new wide-lens adventure started when I was trying to photograph our county courthouse and other buildings prevented me from backing up far enough to get everything in the frame with my 16-85.
If I get this lens (Nikon or Sigma) my collection should be complete - I hope.
Sun 10-Jul-11 01:15 PM | edited Sun 10-Jul-11 01:25 PM by J_Harris
>>I have searched everywhere online and local and can't >find the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED in stock. > >The Nikon Store has refurbs in stock for ~$864. >
Thanks DCCat. I found a new one for $899.95 at a local camera store - if you can call a 130 mile round trip local. They are holding it for me.
My last question.
Since the 10-24 has a very narrow focal range as compared to my 16-85, will a picture taken at 16mm from each look any different as far as distortion, perspective, etc. (excluding lens qualities), or does 16mm always look like 16mm? Does taking pictures at short distances at 10mm give a slight fish-eye effect?
>Since the 10-24 has a very narrow focal range as compared to >my 16-85, will a picture taken at 16mm from each look any >different as far as distortion, perspective, etc. (excluding >lens qualities), or does 16mm always look like 16mm?
Leaving aside (as you requested) that each lens' optical distortion characteristics will differ slightly, it is true that perspective will be identical for any lens when used at the same focal length. Bear in mind, though, that the widest focal length on the 16-85mm is probably a little higher (numerically) than 16mm - this is normal at the extremes of the range for most zoom lenses.
>Does taking pictures at short distances at 10mm give a slight >fish-eye effect?
Most super-wide lenses produce some barrel distortion at their wider focal lengths. This could be viewed as a very mild form of the "fisheye effect", but a true fisheye will give a far more exaggerated result. > >Thanks > >Oops, that was two questions. >
Sat 16-Jul-11 07:23 PM | edited Sat 16-Jul-11 07:33 PM by J_Harris
>>Does taking pictures at short distances at 10mm give a slight fish-eye effect? > >Most super-wide lenses produce some barrel distortion at their wider focal lengths. This could be viewed as a very mild form of the "fisheye effect", >but a true fisheye will give a far more exaggerated result. >>
I finally found some time to play with my new 10-24DX today. This time even with the other buildings preventing me from backing up I was able to get our entire county courthouse in the frame using 12-15mm.
This is really a interesting lens. At 10-15mm, just raising or lowering the focus point slightly gives a completely different perspective because of the extreme convex lens design. But, I'm sure all you 10-24 owners already know this.
If you haven't tried a super-wide lens you should, it's very entertaining and challenging.
>This is really a interesting lens. At 10-15mm, just raising or >lowering the focus point slightly gives a completely different >perspective because of the extreme convex lens design.
The perspective change with shooting angle is not specific to the design of this lens; any lens of similar focal length would do the same. In fact, all lenses do it, but it's more obvious with wider angles because of the closer shooting distance that such a lens allows while still "getting it all in", .
>If you haven't tried a super-wide lens you should, it's very >entertaining and challenging.
Sat 09-Jul-11 03:55 PM | edited Sat 09-Jul-11 04:05 PM by PAStime
I love my Sigma 8-16mm. I can't provide comparison information of this lens relative to others. But it is a lot of fun and a serious challenge to use effectively. Focus can be tricky and at this extreme wide angle not all is perfect in terms of optics but that would be true of any brand and model. Some samples below. Imagine the possibilities if shot by someone who knew what they were doing! Peter
>I am thinking of buying it as well. > >Ken Rockwell reviewed the lens and compared it with Tokina >11-16mm f/2.8 with conclusion the Tokina outperform the >Nikkor in terms of sharpness.
I am the original poster of this thread. I have not used the Tokina 11-16mm but I did buy the Nikon 10-24mm.
Because of the minor riot caused by mentioning Ken Rockwell in an earlier post I swore I would never bring his name into a discussion again! So, no comment about his review from me. I'm sure the "regulars" here no what I'm talking about.
As far as the Nikon 10-24, I have really enjoyed having it with my D7000. Usually using it not for landscapes, but when I need the Ultra-wide because of space restrictions. The optical quality and build is about the same as the Nikon 16-85mm if you are familiar with that lens - not as good as the professional lenses, but excellent for upper consumer grade lenses. There is some distortion at the widest focal ranges, but all ultra-wides have it too and its easily corrected in software, or automatically in camera if it has that feature. Color and contrast is very good, but again, not as good as professional lenses.
Below is two pictures that I could not get without the 10-24mm. A wall was at my back in the Missouri State Capital "Rotunda" picture and two-steps backward would have resulted in a 200-foot drop down a cliff into a lake in the Ha Ha Tonka Castle ruins shot. The castle detail is not the best, but that is not the fault of the lens. The lighting was poor due to a cloudy sky and the yellowish sandstone bricks don't show detail and contrast well. So, it has been invaluable for situations like these. EXIF information has not been removed from pictures.
11mm, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/8, no flash, handheld (took five shots to get it right @ 1/8)