Ultrawide zooms 10 vs 12?

[tizeye]

My next lens will be an ultrawide zoom and debating if worth the little extra that the 10-? provides over the 12-24's on the market. Specifically, the Tokina 12-24 available now (both old and new model) and the even newer Nikon 10-24. While nice to save $$, price is a secondary consideration and either way would be a business tax deduction. I've ruled out the Tamron 10-24 based on the reviews and user posts on the net, and even the local camera shop that carries both strongly recommending the Tokina over the Tamron. Lukewarm on the Sigma 10-20, not sold locally and the three pro reviews (dpreview, slrgear, photozone) generally positive with biggest issues in the 10-12 range (resolved with higher f-stop) which would seem to minimize usefullness vs a lens that starts at 12. Also, Sigma's 'sample quality control' seems to be a recurrent issue.

Primary Useage:
Landscape - Close-in wide angle as opposed to the broad, expansive landscapes. By that, I mean, I am a Realtor, so it is houses and interior shots - not the Grand Canyons. And (unfortunately) it is not the open homes that you see in magazines, but more compact everyday homes. Currently using the kit 18-55 which does OK and I am the envy of the office vs their P&S efforts, but I want to take it to the next level. Getting glass before I upgrade the D40 body. I can manually focus but that is getting to be a moot issue with the newer lens out there (plus the wide DOF in these lens).

It comes down to:
1) Get the Tokina 12-24 DX II now and don't worry about the 10-12 gap.
2) Forget the 12-24...you need the 10
3) Wait a month or so for the Nikon 10-24 - just being stocked now - to see how rates vs the Tokina.
4) Reconsider the Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 10-24

Yes, I do know the Tokina 11-18 and Tamron 11-16 are sharp and in the same pricerange, but consider them too limited in focal range. I don't want to be forced to continually change back to the 18-55 for the few shots that I need the slighly lonfer focal length that the 20 or 24 would cover.

[GaryS]

In constrained space like a small house, I would suggest that every mm counts. Think of it as percentages... 12mm is 20% less wide than 10.

For real estate, you are going to love an UWA. Not only will you get more in the shot vs 18, but the perspective change makes even the smallest room seem HUGE! If the other realtors are jealous now, they are going to freak when they see these shots.

I would use a tripod for most shots, shooting at f11 for max DOF, which would negate the need for a fast lens.

I would not worry too much about the limited zoom range issue. When I pull out this lens, its the 10mm shot that I want... I'm not even sure if mine actually zooms, it could be stuck! (that's a joke :) )

I recently got at Sigma 10-20, and I am happy with it. Just a comment.

[VTEC_EATER]

I use the Nikkor 12-24 for my interior shots and at times it just is not wide enough. Small rooms or tight spaces are just not easy to shoot. Here is the problem with ultrawides... Perspective distortion makes the rooms feel like you shot photos in a funhouse. I have found that even at 12mm the rooms and furniture whthin the room just get out of proportion and elongated.

For example:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/3289985151_5449538fb3_o.jpg

As you can see, the hanging light fixtures have a strange oblong stretched look to them as the perspective of the wide angle lens has they converging to a vanishing point way out in space. Its not how the fixtures look in real life. They are perfectly round in real life. Now, this is how it looks at 12mm. At 10mm it would be even more exaggerated.

I have been pretty happy with the 12-24mm lens with the exception of this. But this is not a fault of the lens, but a fault of the focal length. This will happen with any lens, and will be even more exaggerated with a wider focal length.

Now, if I wanted to take interior architecture photography to the next step, i would move to a D700 with a 14-24/2.8 lens. I could have shot the same shot above at 18mm and had less perspective distortion to save those light fixtures. But I can not afford a D700 and 14-24/2.8, so I am stuck with what I got. It works, but its not as good as I would like it.

[VTEC_EATER]

I also should mention, for interior architecture, pay attention to the distortion the lens has. The 12-24 has a bit of a strange distortion pattern to it. It makes for some crazy post processing to remove it. Programs like PTLens can remove it very well, but ideally I would try to find a lens with the least amount of distortion as possible. It just makes things much easier. If the new Nikkor 10-24 has less distortion than the current 12-24, then I think it will be a nice lens. If it is even more screwed up than the 12-24, I would recommend the Tokina if you are on a budget, the Nikkor if you are not. If you can go all out and want the least amount if distortion, go 14-24/2.8. But that big boy will set you back $1800. I have seen how good this lens is, and its worth every penny. But its just too rich for my blood.

[tizeye]

Nice hiding yourself from that mirror! Another perspective issue is notice how the vanity juts out. One technique I've found is to change the viewpoint with a small step ladder. Works great in kitchens, and would have really been a challenge there with those mirrors.

[rewired]

if you just want to record rooms based on 'a shot of each room' principle, thats fine, but there is a point were you can go too wide, where photographically speaking it doesnt hold any engaging qualities as the details become too small and the expanse of ceiling and floor takes over.

For small rooms different story, mostly not all that interesting anyway, 18mm EFL is enough for that, a little tougher to get by with less but it can be done.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3468075393_2fbe702a1e.jpg

Another problem is the perspective of the view, were form the outside the roofline will disappear with UWA that will not necessarily happen with a slightly longer focal taken from futher away.

This is the same house taken from different heights with a 28mm EFL around 20ft high from the ground (down the slope) and a 22mm EFL at night, notice that from the tripod at night the roof profile is gone, being closer with an UWA will do the same.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/3122417769_1385c7b070.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/3124082917_6502e016ea.jpg