Wide angle.... Nikon vs Tamron vs Sigma

[GoldenOrb]

Ok, heres the dilemma.

I want a wide angle lens.
My current collection is
18-200
10.5 fisheye
35mm prime

Problem is that I want to upgrade to a full format sensor shortly... so I dont want to spend too much on a dx cropped lens. Its not overly a big drama as I dont intend on selling the d300 anytime soon

looking today
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED Lens is 1200+
Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Nikon is +640
Tokina AT-X 124 Pro DX II 12-24mm f/4 for Nikon is about 850
prime
Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 ZF Lens for Nikon +1600
obviously they are different .

But I would still like to buy something that is reasonably good without spending too much if you know what I mean. I have checked the website that compares the lenses and what you may see out of them...

Has anyone got any one of the listed lenses and can give us a idea on what the pros and cons are

thanks

[GoldenOrb]

or do I wait until I get a fx sensor and get the full use from one???

[I @ M]

Sorry, I don't own any of the lenses listed but we do own a Sigma 10-20 that is used on the DX cameras and it produces very good results for the dollar outlay.
The Tokina 12-24 has some pretty fair reviews and has sold well over the last few years.
If you want to wait and utilise the FX body and a wide angle lens the Nikkor 14-24 has a brilliant reputation ( at a price ) or the sample pics on the net from the Tokina 16-28 look very appealing at 1/2 the price ( we are saving up for one ) and then there is also the Sigma 12-24 that is an FX lens that is the current widest wide angle (excluding fisheyes) for an FX body.

[arthurking83]

For Dx bodies, I think the Tokina 11-16 is the one to get.

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6(ie. not the f/3.5 version!!) is the best bang for your dollar
and if using filters(with ease) is not a priority then nothing beats the Sigma 8-16mm lens(on Dx).

FWIW, I've never used or handled the lenses in your post.. well I've handled the Nikon 12-24 in a store, but only out of curiosity as there is this weird consensus amongst many that it's very solidly built(or that it's much more solid that the Sigma 10-20).. and while it is, I found that aspect of the lenses quality very ho hum :confused013 and hardly worth twice the price. While it was a lot more solid in feel compared to a standard kit type lens(18-55/18-105/etc) compared to the Sigma 10-20 the difference in 'feel' was insignificant(to me).

Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 are very similar in terms of (solidity) feel, and I've had the opportunity to play with that lens a while back. Very nice lens, and in normal usage you won't find enough difference between it and the much cheaper Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. Normal usage for an UWA is usually at something like f/8 and infinity focus(ie. landscapes or architectural stuff or whatever) but the value of Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 aperture shouldn't be underestimated either.

For Dx, if I could have my time all over again.. I'd have both the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16. Different lenses for different needs.

[Wayne]

If you are looking to go to FX on a Nikon system, then there are 2 good choices.

1. One of the finest WA lenses for the Nikon system ever, the AF-S 17-35/2.8. An excellent used sample approx $US1000 boxed with everything. This lens is somewhat undervalued at present with it's price being compressed by number 2 below, but it is the pro's choice for WA on the Nikon system. I have one, and it is superb. If you want UWA, then the AFS 14-24/2.8 is the finest, sharpest you will get, and also going quite a bit cheaper than they were 6 months back (about US$1200).

2. AF-S 16-35/4 - A good lens that has attracted many users to WA, but they don't have the reviews the 17-35 has, and of course lose 1 stop. These can be had new for about US$1000, I saw one sell today for US$750, I missed it by a few mins.

IMHO, 3rd party lenses are not worth buying given what you can get from Nikon at current prices. If you are going D700/3/3s/3x/4? in near future, it deserves premium glass. They last a lifetime, they are usually a one time investment.

[GoldenOrb]

yeh the ol US market is good ... for us.... at the moment. I only recently learnt that what I paid for my 4880 printer 2-3 years ago I could have had a 2nd hand 9800... would have just had to sort shipping and power step up with a transformer...

Its not something Im rushing in to.. it took me 2 years to save up for my d300 and 18-200 lens.

I have always been of the opinion you get what you pay for.. occasionally you are presently surprised.

It will be interesting to see what Nikon has in store with its range of fx sensors...

thanks for the info... its greatly appreciated

[N*A*M]

i liked the tokina 11-16 when i owned it
sold it when i was after some other lenses and regretted it
i picked up the older tokina 12-24 for a song later on, but it just wasn't the same
so i traded that for a film camera

[wolffman]

I got the nikon 10-24 and I've been really happy with it, but lots of people have the sigma and have been pretty pleased with it. I'd go with the sigma over the tamron. There is quite a noticable difference between 10 and 12 mm.
Any UWA lens you get for a dx sensor will not be tremendous on a fx body, and any fx UWA will only get you to 24mm equivalent on dx so you kinda need to decide if your new fx camera is a reality, or just a pipedream.
Having said that, I have heard that the dx 12-24s won't vignette on an fx sensor until you get to about 18mm, so its possible that the money spent now isn't entirely wasted on your fx body. You need to override the fx cameras automatic cropping when the dx lens is fitted, but it's worth thinking about. That's been my approach anyway but I havent tried it.
I don't really subscribe to the argument that better built lenses will last years and years longer. I still have a plastic mount nikon 80-200 lens which I have taken backpacking around the world for 5 years plus another 5 in Australia and it still works fine. The focal length range of the 10-24 is great for me, and another reason I went for it over the tokina 11-18.

[Avalon]

For what it's worth, I had the Sigma 10-20mm on my D300 until recently and I highly recommend it.
However when I upgraded to a full frame sensor (D700) I sold my Sigma and bought the Nikon 20mm.
It has quickly become my favorite lens for the moment. It is comparatively cheap, and so light and compact it fits anywhere so I never find myself leaving it behind.
I considered the 14-24mm, but price, size, weight and issues with filters ruled it out for me.

[swifty]

I havn't used ur listed lens but FWIW I have a 14-24, currently on a DX body with a view to transition to FX, hopefully not too far in the future.
I find 14mm plenty wide on DX but then again I've been taking less and less landscapes these days. It's also quite front heavy so it doesn't balance as nicely on my S5.
But of course no complaints about the optical qualities. Size, price and weight is the penalty u pay if u want top notch glass.

[Wayne]

Size, price and weight is the penalty u pay if u want top notch glass.

This about sums it up...

[maccaroneski]

I considered the 14-24mm, but price, size, weight and issues with filters ruled it out for me.

Me too, but instead I went with the 16-35 when I got my D700 - fantastic lens, and the range puts it into the "walkaround" category, as well as being superb for landscapes. The VR helps when the light is low (but obviously won't help it freeze action). it's be a nice walkaround lens on DX too i reckon (24-50 equivalent), so will tide you over until you make the switch to FX nicely.

[vanngirl]

or do I wait until I get a fx sensor and get the full use from one???

I would say wait for FX, and then your new wide will work on both, albeit at diff focal lengths (although that can be handy too). Although waiting for the new FX could take a while, and you know the price of the new ?D800 will be huge, and rumours about a D4 are unreliable/unrealistic. But, that's a whole other conversation!

But if you absolutely have to have this new lens now (and I understand! :) ) then I'd go the Nikon. Alway a Nikon. And re-sale is presumably stronger if you decide to sell off all your DX gear one day.

[GoldenOrb]

Cool, thanks for all the info guys, its much appreciated.

Geoff