Newbie needs a lens....a wide angle lens :-)

I need some advice. I am on a budget. I recently bought a D5000 so am looking for a wide angle lens which has a built in AF motor (AF-S equivalent). I have looked at the following 2:

1. Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD AF SP

2. Sigma EX 10-20mm DC HSM f4-5.6

I can't find any thorough reviews on them and was hoping someone had used one or both. I know they probably aren't the best because they are "cheap" but I am looking for a healthy compromise which will be a stepping stone.

Thanks

Actually some members here have the sigma and are happy with it. The most highly rated Dx ultra wides I've come across are the Tokina 11-16, Nikon 10-24 and the sigma 10-20. Note that the Tokina has just come out with a motorized version, but I'm not sure about the price. Those 3 are the top rated, from there you need to incorporate your personal shooting stlye in the mix to make the best choice for you.

Thanks, I didn't know Tokina have a motorised 11-16mm one now! I was leaning to toward the sigma myself but am worried that they may suffer from low image quality which I don't know about

I have the Tokina and it's very good. Extremely sharp. In fact my wife bought the 10.5 fisheye at the same time I bought the Tokina. Take a guess what she has part exed the 10.5 for this week. She has now admitted that the reason she never asked to use the Tokina was because it would make her jealous having seen my shots.

I feel obliged to say the same thing I always say and that's to avoid buying a non-Nikkor lens. Whatever money you think you're saving will be eaten up when you go to sell it as there's very little demand or price preservation for non-Nikkor lenses. Honestly, in the world of camera equipment you really do get what you pay for and there's a reason these lenses cost less.

But this is my very bias view point and I am an admitted Nikon snob.

I've used / owned the Tamron, and its forte is more at the wide end than the long end. From f5.6, central sharpness at 10mm is excellent with some minor softness at the corners, but wide open there's some softness at all FLs, but it will clean up in PP. Its worth the money, ... just dont buy a new one. They hold their 2nd price ok, ( I bought a used model for £225/235 5 years back and they're still going for that price today ) so buy a used example and if you dont like it, flip it.

The real wide end is the DX camera's nemesis!

Its not that bad Jeff.. 10mm is = to around 15mm on FF as you know, and 15mm on FF is pretty wide. I think the widest you can buy for FF is the Sig 12-24

20 to 25mm primes (FX) I think of as landscape stuff...28 and 35 (FX) I think of street work or good old photojournalism.

I don't have any experience with really wide lenses and I think taking pictures of the wide open sky with clouds and pictures of mountains, etc. are sort of boring or at least I haven't got into them yet...

When I had my Minolta gear nearly 20 years ago (a D7000i body) I had a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, and a 70-210mm f3.5-4.5. It seems to have changed a lot, because back then a 24mm was considered super wide angle, with the 20mm f2.8 being classed as ultra-wide (I didn't like it since it was starting to bend the horizon) I do remember using one (a 20mm) to take a picture of the mast of an old ship from a distance of around about 100 feet, and managed to get the whole mast in, but the rest of the picture was distorted. I suppose the DX equivalent of a 24mm 35mm lens would be a 16mm.

With the Nikkor 16mm f2.8 FX lens at the price it is, I'd go for a second hand one. But I must agree I'd try for a used Nikkor before buying a non-Nikkor

Or you could consider buying a 16-85mm, but I suppose that depends on your other lenses...

Mojo-F said:

I feel obliged to say the same thing I always say and that's to avoid buying a non-Nikkor lens. Whatever money you think you're saving will be eaten up when you go to sell it as there's very little demand or price preservation for non-Nikkor lenses. Honestly, in the world of camera equipment you really do get what you pay for and there's a reason these lenses cost less.

But this is my very bias view point and I am an admitted Nikon snob.

Click to expand...

In a lot of cases I would agree, however when I got the Tokina I spent a lot of time researching and looking at pics taken with Nikon, Sigma and Tokina ultra wides. To me the Tokina was as good or better IQ wise than Nikon and also gave F2.8 which I have used a lot as it isn't confined to landscape. When I made my decision the one thing I did not consider was price. If Nikon was better I would have gone that way. Also, this lens seems to hold its used value as well as Nikon, a lot probably don't.

Eye-level said:

20 to 25mm primes (FX) I think of as landscape stuff...28 and 35 (FX) I think of street work or good old photojournalism.

I don't have any experience with really wide lenses and I think taking pictures of the wide open sky with clouds and pictures of mountains, etc. are sort of boring or at least I haven't got into them yet...

Click to expand...

Ultrawides do not have to be about boring clouds and landscapes . The shot below was taken at 16mm on my 16-85. It's about perspective and getting up close to me (along with boring clouds and landscapes). Ultrawide is definitely next on my list!

the tokina is generally rated above the nikon dx ultrawides regarding sharpness, plus its f2.8 capabilities. the problems you will encounter with dx cameras and dx ultrawides is chromatic abberation , distortion, corner softness/vignetting and white fringing on high contrast edges. wide angle photography is the dx shooters nemesis!

cnyram said:

Ultrawides do not have to be about boring clouds and landscapes . The shot below was taken at 16mm on my 16-85. It's about perspective and getting up close to me (along with boring clouds and landscapes). Ultrawide is definitely next on my list!


View attachment 14146

Click to expand...

I like that chuff chuff

Thanks for all the replies, I'll have to give it some thought with price being a bit of a sawyer in my case. I must say I find that used non-Nikon lenses hold their value ok....unless I'm looking. In the wrong place

One thing I've noticed about the 3 top UW's is I rarely see one used on craigslist within upstate NY. In the past 11/2 years, one nikon and one sigma within 2 hrs of my area. Fewer folks seem to be asttracted to UW's and the one's that buy them tend to keep them. If I ever come across any of those 3 used at a decent price I'd grab it, thus allowing fate to decide!

Personally I like to keep my gear strictly Nikon but I am becoming more and more not adverse to using non mfg stuff. Cosina is building all kinds of great optic stuff for Nikon's Canons Leicas Zeiss Ikon just about everyone. I think Tokina or one of the major firms was started by Nikon lens engineers. Sigma although you hear about shoddy construction they still make some damn good performing glass. And of course you all know I am queer about that wide angle Quantaray but I am that way because I have seen the tests on that lens...it beats everything else in it's category period by a long shot too.

evan said:

the tokina is generally rated above the nikon dx ultrawides regarding sharpness, plus its f2.8 capabilities. the problems you will encounter with dx cameras and dx ultrawides is chromatic abberation , distortion, corner softness/vignetting and white fringing on high contrast edges. wide angle photography is the dx shooters nemesis!

Click to expand...

Evan

I can only assume that you've been very unlucky with your own DX ultra wides as I don't see all of the issues that you mention in typical use of the Tokina and I'm guilty of being very critical of IQ. Yes distortion but easily corrected and only exaggerated at certain angles. I don't get vignetting with a pro 1 protector. The other things are not obvious if they're even there.

Which lens did you have I'll make a note to avoid it in the future?

all dx ultrawides have drawbacks. general sharpness in the edges,chromatic abberation, distortion , ghosting, flare and even white fringe on high contrast edges. if you really need good wide angle results pony up for fx, its the way to go for landscapes.