Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8

I made my decision on which wide-angle lens to purchase (see previous entry) and picked up the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. The ratings and specs compared versus the price (when compared to Nikon's offerings) and the fact that they were a known quantity thanks to my excellent experiences with the equivalent crop-sensor model for my D7000. I knew from looking at the physical specs that the thing was heavy, what I'd not expected was the sheer size of the thing compared to its DX colleague. Truly it is a beast. Check out its size compared to the standard reference brew in the picture, for example. It's comparable with the alternatives, of couese, I just hadn't appreciated the scale-up of lenses that takes places in the shift from crop sensor to full-frame. Ah well, I've made my choice.

The quality of the lens itself is superb and I'm delighted, just as I was with its predecessor in my lineup. I've not got many example photos taken using the lens just yet but here's one of the Potala palace in Tibet. I look forward to many future shoots using it.

Crunching Numbers

I knew that my 28-300 lens wasn't great when I bought it. I wanted it for flexibility, not performance, but it's good to know that it will at least perform better on the full frame camera for which its purchase was intended, at least according to DxOMark. I've heard some criticism of DxO's lens comparison and I've even disagreed with some of their findings myself (they say that the Tokina 11-16 is best at f/2.8 whereas my own observations and indeed common sense suggest it's better at f/4 rather than wide open) but really, what better system are you going to use when researching lens purchases?

Wide angle problems

I hadn't realised but it turns out that I actually have a pretty specific set of requirements for a wide angle lens. That's good in a way, I suppose, since it implies I know what I want but it does mean that a number of available lenses don't meet one or more of the criteria:
+ At least 18mm wide
+ At least f/2.8
+ Decent rating from DxOMark or the like
+ Weigh less than my camera
+ Budget c.£700
+ Not fisheye

I'm open to either prime or zoom if it meets the requiements. The lens I'm using on my DX rig is the Tokina 11-16 and has been superb- my best lens- but I do tend to use it at the widest angle so it would make sense to just get a prime from that POV. I had been looking at switching to the FX equivelent of the 11-16, the 16-28 which I'm sure will deliver what I need but it weighs nearly a kilo! Not the most portable given that I mostly do wandering travel photography.

Sigma and Nikon both have well-regarded beautifully light 20mm primes (the Sigma one is f/1.8!) but I checked the loss of FOV on Nikon's handy lens simulator between 16 and 20mm and it's just too much for me. I prefer to see all the things. My best urban landscape shots are all 16mm equivelent. Sigma also do a 15mm prime but it's a fisheye and a (discontinued) 14mm prime that sadly doesn't appear to be very good. Other offerings from Nikon are a 14mm prime and a 14-24mm, both at f/2.8. This would be ideal were it not for the £1300 price tag.

So where does all this leave me? Apparently having to compromise- pay nearly twice what I'd like, lose some FOV or haul around a tank. I'm stumped.

Village Day 2013

I grew up in a small village in Northwest England and, just to live up to the stereotype, we have a village fête. Pretty traditional: bouncy castles, apple bobbing, face painting, homemade jam and all that stuff.

It was also the first proper outing of my new zoom lens where I was shooting at the long end. The first thing to say is that we were blessed with a sunny day, meaning I could keep the shutter speed way up (640/1), even while shooting in ISO 200 at f/8. I guess that's likely necessary at 300mm on a DX-format sensor. That out of the way, I found it performed pleasingly well. Yes, it's a touch soft on the long end. But only a touch. It's never going to be competing with a prime, is it? The VR helps, of course, and the SWM focussing is a blessing compared to my old Tamron 18-250. Overall, very happy and it gives me exactly the versatility I was looking for. I'm pleased that I opted to get this over the (cheaper & presumably sharper) 70-300 since I was shooting at the full range, swithcing from zoom to wide shots at no notice where I wouldn't have wanted to change lenses.

Bizarrely, the small handful of photos I uploaded pulled in nearly 1000 views to my Flickr account yesterday. I guess the kids love quaint rural funsies. Also dancing girls.

Lens decision!

I appear to have made a decision with regards to upgrading to a full-frame camera. Well, sort of- I've bought a Nikon 28-300mm full-frame lens to replace my very cheap Tamron 18-250mm zoom.

I guess this means I'm sticking with the Nikon system rather than switching to Canon for the EOS 6D, which is something I'd been flirting with. There are a couple of advantages of this; firstly, I can upgrade and replace my lenses and other kit piecemeal without leaving holes in my lineup since my existing lenses will work on a Nikon full-frame (even if they won't be making the most of its capabilities) whereas with Canon I'd have to replace everything in one go- camera body, lenses, flash, remote & triggers. The other reason for sticking with Nikon is Canon's lens line up, specifically on the telephoto side of things. Here's what I mean- this is the Nikon lens I bought and this is the Canon equivalent. Both are 28-300, f/3.5 - 5.6, image stabilising, full-frame etc. etc. The Nikon one (at time of writing) is around £650 on Amazon, the Canon £2050. Their product lineup would seem to suggest that Canon will let you have 50mm into the hundreds fine, but if you want to start lower, they deem that to be a 'pro lens' and you're into more serious money. That's not an option for me and I can't see an alternative in their lineup, nor from the likes of Sigma, so that sort of decided it for me.

I know I could get a 75-300 or some such but I'm not willing to take on an extra lens. The idea is to build a lineup of:
+ Super wide-angle
+ Prime portrait (35mm or 50mm)
+ General versatile & telephoto

The 28-300 will certainly offer benefits over my current lens- not only is it longer (on crop sensor, anyway), but it's got vibration reduction, advertised as making up the equivalent of four shutter stops of speed, allowing you to shoot slower. Not only that but it's f5.6 at the long end, compared with 6.5 on what I have now. All told, it should make for a considerably quicker lens (and hopefully sharper, too).

All of this, combined with me finding a cheap Nikon refurb was too much to resist. I'll update more once the lens arrives. Hopefully in the next couple of days.

Lens indecision

I've been thinking of reviewing which lenses I use. My cheap Tamron 18-250 that I picked up is alright but seldom does it provide images quite as notably sharp as those taken on either my Nikon 5mm prime or my Tokina 11-16mm. At least part of this is the lack of vibration reduction provided by that model, ever more important at the long end of things.

Swapping it for a Nikon equivalent gives me the options of 55mm or 70mm to 200mm or 300mm. Either way, I'm losing the 18-55 range. From that perspective, Nikon's 18-105mm appeals but them I'm weighed down with four lenses and that certainly doesn't appeal:

Tokina 11-16mm
Nikon 18-105mm
Nikon 50mm prime
Nikon 70-300mm

That's a heavy bag.