Another "Which super-wide angle to get?"

[milkpowder]

I'm completely lost and I'm completely spoiled for choice. Having used the 14-24/f2.8 on a few occasions, I've decided it probably isn't wide enough seeing that I shoot on a DX frame.

I'll be using it as a walkaround travel lens in a few Italian cities, namely Rome, Florence, Venice and Naples. Wide-open performance is crucial, because I'll be using this both indoors and outdoors where light may not be optimal. I won't have a tripod, but will have a flash at my disposal. I do prefer to shoot with available light though. Close-focussing abilities would be a major plus too for exaggerated perspectives.

Nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 - It's a Nikon. Nikon reliability. Nikon quality. Judging by their recent offerings, this one should be a stunner too, but still a bit pricey (£709). :frown: I'd like to spend less if possible, but the focal range is just sublime.

Nikon 12-24 f4 - Probably made redundant by the 10-24? The range isn't as great either and probably above what I'm willing to spend.

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - I've heard and seen great things about this fella, but the aperture is too slow for indoor available light photography. Nice price though (£370). The newer f3.5 version is quite pricey at a hefty £610.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - I would love to be able to shoot at f2.8, but the focal range is very limited. Wide open CA might be an issue. Middle of the range price (£460).

Tokina 12-24 f4 - Currently the front runner. Superb reviews, decent wide open, questionable performance at 24mm, vignetting and CA might be an issue (recurring theme with Tokina lenses?). Very good build quality. Price is very attractive (£390).

I know about Sigma's sample lottery, but how is Tokina?

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[IsaacImage]

wait and buy 12-24 2.8

 

[pluton]

I had the Nikon 12-24 for the 1.5 years I shot DX, and I found it could be trusted under any and all conditions--it never failed or ruined a shot. You can pay less, but I think you'll be giving something up.

 

[CraigH]

I'd go with Sigma's new 10-20 f/3.5, Nikon's new 10-24 f/3.5-4.5, or Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8. I think all three will give you great IQ and within a half stop the same fast speed. I have owned the older Tokina 12-24 and now have the Sigma 10-20 and can tell you that extra 2mm is a real advantage.

My Sigma 10-20 f/4-f5.6 is fairly slow compared to the newer lenses, but I've never really felt the need until recently when I was in some Linville Caverns. My Sigma has performed flawlessly over the past couple of years. I first tried a Tokina 12-24 but mine must have been flawed. Tokina is known for a bit more than average CAs but mine had terrible fringing.

If I were in the market today for a new superwide DX lens, I'd probably give the nod to Nikon's new 10-24. I'd wait for some reviews on the new Sigma, though.

 

[milkpowder]

Thanks for the feedback. The 12-24/2.8 can be found 2nd hand for quite a bit cheaper than a new 10-24/3.5-4.5 and probably a used one too.

I read Ken Rockwell's wideangle review and he likes the Tokina 11-16/2.8 the most, followed by the Nikon 12-24/4 and then the Tokina 12-24/4.

 

[Preston]

I have found that the Tokina 11-16 is my favorite & the range is fine because you WANT wide.

 

[Pianisimo]

The slower 10-20 is not at all too slow. It's easy to shoot inside and out because shooting at 10mm, you can easily get away with 1/10th of a second most of the time. I sold my original 10-20 to afford a 17-55 2.8, but just got another one because I missed it so much. It's the most fun of all I've used.

 

[sreeves31]

More of my keepers come from my Sigma 10-20 than any other lens (I've got a really sharp copy though.) Don't shoot wide open at these focal lengths much but the extra zoom range
of the new Nikon really tempts me as I have a wide on my D300 much of the time.

 

[bestfromnw]

whats your budget? if you have spare$$$ go for the nikon 10-24mm.

 

[danameless]

I have the Sigma 10-20 and I think it works great. I don't think it's that slow and my copy has good performance. I considered the Nikon 10-24, but it was a little on the expensive side for a ultra-wide (at least for my purposes). If you shoot a lot in ultra-wide, then it might be worth it for you if $$$ is not an issue.

 

[zahidkm]

judging from the perspective, you should wait for the sigma 10-20 3.5 and see how good it is. it should be released very soon, like this month or so.

 

[Growltiger]

I had the Nikon 12-24 and now have the Nikon 10-24. Both are excellent.

I really like the fact that they extend to 24mm, making them into a possible walk-around lens with the medium (36mm equivalent) focal length.

10mm is a wonderful focal length.

This is at 10mm straight out of the camera. The camera was just a few inches off the ground.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[CraigH]

Thanks for the feedback. The 12-24/2.8 can be found 2nd hand for quite a bit cheaper than a new 10-24/3.5-4.5 and probably a used one too.

I read Ken Rockwell's wideangle review and he likes the Tokina 11-16/2.8 the most, followed by the Nikon 12-24/4 and then the Tokina 12-24/4.

I'm not sure what a 12-24 f2/8 is?

I also like Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8, but I certainly wouldn't go that way based on Ken Rockwell. To each their own, though. Rockwell often reviews without ever touching what he's reviewing. He is also just an amateur like most of us. Makes his living from those who click his web links. I enjoy reading stuff there, but take it with a huge grain of salt.

Here's some interesting Ken Rockwell reading:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm

I could go on, but it degenerates from there.