Wideangle zoom advice needed!

[tekriter]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm in the market for a truly wide zoom. I already have the Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM, and it's an incredibly sharp lens, but there are times that it's just not wide enough on my D300.

In the last few months I've started shooting high school reunions, and will be getting into weddings, and big sellers from these events are the group (class) shots, and shots of a table full of diners.

The table layouts at the last two reunions were too tight to get a table of 8 into one shot. At the one I did three weeks ago I had to move an entire buffet table to be able to back up enough to do the class photo.

So, I'm looking for something in the 12-24, 11-24, 11-20, 12-28 range. If memory serves me, the Tokina 12-24 is highly regarded, but it's the only one I'm familiar with.

One more consideration - price. The Nikkor 12-24 sounds good, but it's $1000 US. How would the Tamron 11-18 or Sigma 10-20 be for me? A fast aperture would be nice but not an absolute requirement.

[eddie_dane]

I had the 12-24 until I moved to FX and loved it. If I had to do it over again, I would probably opt for the Tokina 12-24. You should also consider the new nikkor 10-24 if you need something superwide.

[faisal]

IMO UWA isn't a good idea for group shots as the distortion would mess around with the way the people will look on the edges...

[TheWengler]

I agree with faisal, but sometimes you need everyone to fit and there isn't room.

I'd look at Tokina 12-24 f/4 or 11-16 f/2.8

[jcon]

IMO UWA isn't a good idea for group shots as the distortion would mess around with the way the people will look on the edges...

I agree. .

[photowerkz]

Tokina 11-16 or sigma 10-20 f3.5 seems to be the best choices. Don't bother with the nikon 10-24 as from reviews it seems inferior to even the sigma. Be aware that the tokina suffers from CA's tho.

And as said: you got to be carefull shooting with such wide lenses, as the distortions create whole new challenges with composure. Having shot for several years, I felt like a complete noob when I for the first time did a photoshoot with a real wide angle lens (canon 10-22mm) Almost nothing was useable, as the difference between a "propper" wide angle like that and something like a 16-17mm lens is quite dramatic.

[AlexMonro]

If you don't need the bright aperture, the older Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is a bit cheaper, and possibly a better performer except at the extreme wide end, especially if you can stop down to f/8.

[philwojo]

I rented the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 but I really only used it on landscape shots. It was a great lens, but did take a lot of getting used to. I did do some people shots with it, but they were single or two person shots tops, not big groups.

That said I felt like I had to be right on top of the person to make it look right. I was literally like 1 foot from their face.

Phil W.

[tekriter]

Thanks for all the great feedback. I should have mentioned in my first post that one of my other reasons for going to an ultrawide was to get people away from the outer edges, not just get more people in.

The reunion group shots that I have taken sometimes have people at the very edge of the frame, leaving no room to crop. Hopefully, with the ultrawide, I could have the group pic with enough space around them to crop to 4x6 and 8x10 without losing anyone on the sides.

[Cyberwlf]

I'm still learning how to use my Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Liking it but i'm really still too much of a newbie to UWA to do it justice yet..