Wide Angle Lenses DX format

[damian82]

Hi everyone

I am in the market for a new lens for my much loved Nikon D90. I want to buy a wide angle but as there are a few out there I am unsure which one to go for.
I like the idea of the Nikon 10-24mm f3.5/4 but I am wondering if paying the extra money for the brand and the extra 1mm over say, the Tonkita 11-16mm f2.8?
Also the Tonkita goes to f2.8, is this a huge advantage in wide angle photography? I get that it is faster and can be hand held easier, but in wide angle is low depth of field important?

There are also Sigma, Tamron etc? So hard to decide.

It does depend on what the lens will be used for, I know, but I am still a moderate beginner and want to have some wide angle fun.

Any suggestions would be great.

Kind regards

Damian

[kirbinster]

Assuming you want to use this mostly for outside shooting I would suggest the Sigma 10-20 HSM. There are two version, and older one and the current one. While the newer one is slightly faster the older one is actually supposed to have slightly better image quality. When you want wide a mm here and there can make a big difference and the 10mm is very nice to have. I had this lens on my D90 and loved it. You should be able to pick them up used on craigslist or other sources for $350 or less. I sold mine when I got my FX body and bought the Sigma 12-24 since the 10-20 is a DX lens.

[sk66]

Ditto.
I did exactly as Kirb did...then I sold the 12-24 and bought the Nikon 14-24....
Wasn't quite as happy with the 12-24 as I was with the 10-20 (variable aperture older model), but there are a few times I've missed those 2mm I gave up.

[Chip]

To muddy the waters a bit more, I have a D90 and the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Love that lens. Contrast, color and sharpness are quite good. Not quite the zoom range as the others mention by Steve and Kirb, but I haven't found the limited zoom range to be a problem.

Here's an example of that lens on my D90:



To me, going to 2.8 is only an advantage if you want to shoot handheld shots in low light, and to the extent that 4.0 should be sharper on a 2.8 lens than on a 3.5 (or so) lens.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the lenses mentioned. Just try to figure our what's most imporant to you: price? image quality? range of zoom? used v. new? etc.

Once you have a sense for this, then the amount of variables will diminish and you should have an easier time deciding.

Deciding on a new toy is almost as much fun as actually getting it.

[sk66]

The Tokina is better than the sigma lens...is it worth almost 2x?
Maybe...If you use ultra wide a lot for things other than scenic/creative (i.e. people, building,etc).
I wouldn't go with the Nikon.

[damian82]

Thanks guys, you have given me more insight to the different brands. The Sigma and the Tokina were looking god due to price, but as you say that they are better in general anyway, that eliminates the nikon

Now I just need to decide which attributes are more important to me to decide between Sigma and Tokina. I have taken all your views on board, and I agree, choosing is half the fun.

Thank you every one so much.

Any more opinions still welcome.

[damian82]

P.s., thanks for the example photo, it looks great, and a good photo, like the low angle.

[OsmosisStudios]

Can only vouch for my Nikon 10-24: Wonderful piece of gear.