A little solw. OK wide or widest that is the question.

[Nikon Man]

I'm stuck using Bill me later. Not a bad deal 6 months no interest.
We're going on a cruise and I want those breathtakingly wide interior shots.
D90 17-55 not nearly wide enough.
I feel guilty going into the local camera store and using their time when they don't except BML.
If Tokina hired a quality control professional at their assembly plant I do believe I would buy one. Just not with their hit or miss quality issues.
I shot a few picture's with a Nikon 10mm fisheye loaned to me at our daughter's wedding but only took a few picture's before returning it.
Stupid me forgot to save the original NEF before de-fishing it.
I think I would like this the best.
I only need wider then 17 once in a while.
Their 10-24 or their 12-24 both have to many mixed reviews.
Same thing with the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5

As that Frankie Sinatra character in the Godfather whining to The Godfather
at his daughters wedding.
I don't know what to do Godfather?

[Jeff Perry]

Tokina's 10-17 is a fisheye, and they also have non-fisheye 11-16 f/2.8 and 12-24 f/4. Nikon has a new 10-24 AF-S (3.5-5.6). Obviously the Nikon brand is more expensive, but then...it is a NIkon, and we have come to expect that.

I have the Tokina 12-24 and have been pleased with it. I do not use it a lot, but on vacations (Alaska, Arizona, Utah, etc.) it is a workhorse.

Jeff

[BovrilArg]

So I have the Sigma 10-20 and really got more then I thought I would get. The lens is sharp and distortions are well within expected levels. I had the opportunity to use the Tokina 10-24 for a solid month while on vacation and while it is a good lens I was disappointed with the distortions around the edges of some of the pictures. Finally when I looked at the Nikon 10-24mm the price just put me off. I still cannot see twice the price for a simple brand name with similar reviews to the other two contenders.

The first picture is with the sigma (no post processing) at 10mm.

The second is the Tokina at 12mm with a little PP done.

As you can see both did a good job.

[badpickev]

i have the 12-24 by sigma, its awesone on full frame. but on a crop i would go with the 10-20

[mikman]

I've been looking at some ultra wides for my D90 as well and I've decided to go for the Tokina 11-16mm when I decide to make my purchase. It's been proven to be quite a lot sharper than the Sigma 10-20 and the fact that you can shoot at f/2.8 is a great benefit from me. The Nikon is too expensive when there are cheaper options and I'm not a professional. The Sigma also isn't very good at 10mm which is the focal length that I'd probably end up keeping it at most of the time.

[Douglas]

Id love to get an 11-16 or even 12-24 by tokina. Most instances where the images bend can be fixed in PS. The only issue people talked about with the 11-16 was back/front focusing. But I havent heard about that in a long time. And they fly off the shelves.

[moxi1]

Hi there,

I would dispute very much that the Sigma 10-20 is not good at 10.

However I can only say this with my own lens.

Some people have claimed their lens is not sharp (However they did not say how they took the picture; riding a donkey while taking it perhaps

I have four Sigma lenses and I am pleased with all of them!

Cheers Moxi1

[generic]

I sold the sigma 28-90 macro to get a faster one.
Wound up with the sig 17-70 macro (faster).
Also have the sig 10-20.
A friend has the sig 70-200 2.8
I am very happy with all of them, especially the 10-20.

gene

[zemlin]

I ended up with the Tokina 11-16 2.8. I did have to send in it before it would AF accurately on my D80, but optically it's great - and now the AF is spot on too.

[Jackofjr]

I have a Tokina 12-24 on my D90 , its great mate

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by BovrilArg

So I have the Sigma 10-20 and really got more then I thought I would get. The lens is sharp and distortions are well within expected levels. I had the opportunity to use the Tokina 10-24 for a solid month while on vacation and while it is a good lens I was disappointed with the distortions around the edges of some of the pictures. Finally when I looked at the Nikon 10-24mm the price just put me off. I still cannot see twice the price for a simple brand name with similar reviews to the other two contenders.

The first picture is with the sigma (no post processing) at 10mm.

The second is the Tokina at 12mm with a little PP done.

As you can see both did a good job.

The problem with that lens is clearly visible. The warp is there. There is also the issue of being level as on the second image the building is "leaning".

Ultra wide lenses are inherently difficult to manufacture. There is that point around 12-13-14 mm that just is nasty with getting a lens to not have incredibly visible levels of distortion.

The Sigma 12-24 does a good job in that regard.

The best I've seen is the Nikon 14-24 on a FF camera. It's superb... absolutely superb... worth every penny. In my opinion, this lens rivals primes.

Julio

Home

[24-heures]

Perhaps not for a DX thread, but recently I was loaned the new 14/24 f2.8 by a mate to try. On an FX sensor this lens is just soooo good. I just wish I could afford it, that's all.