How useful extra 4mm range (12mm vs 16mm), lens choices

I have a Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5-5.6G DX

I'm considering adding a wider-angle lens (for landscapes, buildings)
I've read a number of reviews, particularly on Photozone.
I've also read a bit (on Photozone forum, here) about an increasing number of lenses showing a 'decentering' effect... particularly third-party lenses.
Klaus (owner of Photozone) posted an "If I had to..." personal ranking of lens quality (control). Happily, Klaus gave Nikon as 2nd (Olympus FT is top, Olympus MFT fourth). Klaus ranked Sigma and Tokina 9th and 11th respectively.
Some of the otherwise excellent reviews of third-party lenses reinforce the hesitance I feel about 'investing' a substantial sum in one of these lenses as I'm not at all confident in being able to test for decentering. My alternative is a (more expensive) Nikon, bought second-hand.
On the other hand, it seems buying Nikon may not be a guarantee of faultlessness: one of the respondents in that thread had bought two 12-24mm lenses and found both decentered (bad luck or what..?!). So, buying second-hand might get me a decentered Nikon..!
The lenses I'm considering are:

• Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 DC HSM

• Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

• Nikkor 12-24mm f4G IF-ED DX (second-hand?)

I considered the Nikkor 10-24mm but the image quality is reviewed as being lower than the 12-24 in the overlapping range, and lower still at 10mm.
I also considered the Tokina 12-24mm f4 AT-X Pro DX - but I've now ruled this out, for reasons below.

All of these lenses are given 3.5 or 4 stars for optical quality in the Photozone reviews. But there are caveats, particularly regarding sample variation for the two Sigma lenses.

• Tokina 12-24: "Optical quality: ***.5" PZ review highlights the very high build quality and very good to excellent resolution, but also notes distortion and CA issues, and contra light problem. Klaus also placed Tokina lowest (11th!) in his "if I had to" ranking of lenses with decentering issues (despite generally higher build quality than other manufacturers). Hence, ruled out.

• Sigma 8-16: "Optical quality: **** Therefore ... highly recommended (if you can find a good sample)!" This lens also can't take filters. But that IS wide

• Sigma 12-24mm: "Optical quality: ***.5 Highly recommended ... if you can get a good sample (the tested sample in Canon mount wasn'tquite as good)."

• Nikon 12-24mm. "Optical quality: ****" Generally a good review, but highlights field curvature and vignetting (though average for APS-C) at 12mm.

From the reviews, the Nikon stands out but the price (lowest I've found new is ~ £740) is hard for me to justify. That means I'm considering buying one second-hand... wondering about the decentering issue and what I'd do if I got a bad 2nd-hand copy.

The other aspect of this is that I don't really know how much I would use a wider lens: how much difference does 12mm make, compared to 16mm. Does it make more difference on DX format, where it's 18mm compared to 24mm.
From memory, on full frame (film), primes would have been 21mm and 24mm... I don't recall being aware of 18mm lenses back then (other than fish-eyes).

The attraction in getting a 12-24mm is that I think the extra width would be useful. It covers the range up to 36mm equivalent, so I wouldn't be changing lenses very much when using for landscapes, trees, architecture, etc whereas if I bought the 8-16mm Sigma, while it would extend my range more than a 12-24mm, alongside the 16-85mm, I can foresee that I would have to carry the 16-85mm as well and be changing lenses more often.

Sorry this is so long... I wanted to get my thoughts down to clarify the issues for me.

• Are there people here who have (experience of) both lenses: starting from 16mm (16-85 / 16-35 etc) and 12mm - how much extra does the 12mm- range give..?

• Would you be happy / recommend going for a Nikon send-hand (there are a few around for about £500) or is it better to go with the Sigma 12-24mm and return it if I get a bad copy? Assuming I can develop the competence to check it adequately, and confident enough in my competence to return it!

Many thanks,
Ian

First off, what strikes me is that you give a lot of credit to the PZ reviews. I would look at the least 2 other lens reviews on the lenses you're interested in, to get an average review. Putting all your faith in one review source does not seem prudent to me. Just my opinion.
Secondly..........trust your instincts! If the Sigma or Tokina lens feels right to you, and does the job, then go for it. Don't get too hung up on all the technicalities of a particular lens. Unless you make your living taking photographs, and every shot has to be dead on perfect in order to get paid, I'd go with the lens that gives you the results you're after.
In short, spend more time actually taking pictures, instead of worrying about how much CA or distortion there is. Honestly.....will any of your friends or colleagues notice, or will they marvel instead at the fantastic shot you took?
Anyway, that's how I feel about it, and all of the above are MY thoughts on the subject. Others opinion may vary.

Have you given any consideration to the 11-16mm, f/2.8 Tokina? The reviews, most all of them, say this lens is equal to or better than any of the lenses you have listed, even the Nikkor 12-24mm. This lens range won't overlap what you already have and at $580 to $600 is about the best buy on the market for zoom wide angle. I also agree with Jack. You can get too enthralled with minor differences in lenses which only experts would know about and no one else will see.

I also agree with what has been said, specs are just specs, like Joseph said about the Tokina 11-16, number of users on this forum and all the reviews are positive. The Tokina will be my next lens.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 would certainly be a lens to consider. While I have not personally used it, all of the reviews I have seen regarding it speak very highly of it. It is a full stop faster than any of your other listed options, its zoom & focus rings rotate in the same direction as Nikon (Sigma's are reverse of Nikon) and quality of construction wise (generally speaking), I would rate Tokina ahead of Sigma. The Tokina is not AF-S, but that's of no consequence since you have a D7000 and unless required by the camera (D3000, D5000, etc.), AF-S is really of no benefit on an ultra-wide lens.

I have a Tokina 11-16 and would not trade it for a Nikon 12-24.
Ken Rockwell Quote:
The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is the best ultrawide zoom available for Nikon DX cameras, better than even Nikon's more expensive 12-24mm AF-S DX.
This Tokina 11-16mm is the world's fastest and sharpest ultrawide lens for small format digital cameras (Nikon DX and Canon 1.6x).
Considering its bargain price of under $600, its the world's best ultrawide lens for digital SLRs.
Tokina 11-16mm

I also have the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 and wouldn't wont anything else.

Michael

Thanks folks, lots of really helpful feedback here. I'll not be bidding for a Nikon on e-bay this week! The Tokina 11-16mm had been top of my next lens wish list until I read about the decentering / quality issues on PZ forum... but as Jack says, I maybe shouldn't take too much heed of one forum or thread... all the reviews I read of it before had rated it very highly... it was the thought of picking up a 'bad copy', and Klaus's 'informal ratings' that put me off. Both the Sigma 8-16 and Tokina 11-16 have very good reviews, so I'll try both when I'm ready... for now, I'll take a LOT more pictures with the 16-85 before maybe indulging myself with either the Sigma for the ultimate wide angle (though slow), or Tokina for the balance of build quality, width and speed. When, and if, it comes to it, one more question: Assuming I go to a local shop (one with a very good after-sales service reputation) to buy this... after comparing the general feel and view of the lenses before choosing, are there any tests that can be done in the shop? Would I (you), for example, compare a series of shots taken with different copies of the same lens? Thanks again for the advice, Ian

IanCD said:

......... one more question: Assuming I go to a local shop (one with a very good after-sales service reputation) to buy this... after comparing the general feel and view of the lenses before choosing, are there any tests that can be done in the shop? Would I (you), for example, compare a series of shots taken with different copies of the same lens? Thanks again for the advice, Ian

Click to expand...

To answer your question truthfully, no, I would not. When buying a brand new lens, you're covered by the warranty, so if anything was amiss with the lens, you'd be able to exchange it with another. Having said that, if you wanted to bring your camera and your own memory card and a laptop computer to the shop with you to compare shots, and the store agreed to it, then by all means go for it. But in my opinion, this would be total overkill and more importantly, completely unnecessary.

fotojack said:

...if you wanted to bring your camera and your own memory card and a laptop computer to the shop with you to compare shots, and the store agreed to it, then by all means go for it. But in my opinion, this would be total overkill and more importantly, completely unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would..! Think I need to spend more time with the camera and less thinking about lenses..! ;-)
Thanks Jack,
Ian

I also have a 16-85 Nikon lens and just bought a Sigma 10-20 f/3,5
I was divided between the 11-16 Tokina and the Sigma but I made my choice based on the CA and distortion of the Tokina. Although the Sigma suffers more regarding vignetting, I now have a longer focal range and the fstop is almost the same 2,8 vs 3,5.

In the end, it's a huge difference when compared with the 16mm from my original lens.

Hello Mestre, welcome to the site! How do you like your 16-85? I plan to get one next month.

cnyram said:

Hello Mestre, welcome to the site! How do you like your 16-85? I plan to get one next month.

Click to expand...

The 16-85mm was my first lens, as I bought just the D80 body and looked for a good all-around lens.

It's great for portraits at 85mm, it's ok for landscapes but a bit limited if you want a great lens for landscapes. In the end it's the lens I leave home with, only switching if I need something specific.

I'm another fan of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. As a matter of fact, it's the ONLY non-Nikkor lens that has a home in my equipment bag. Not that I'm a lens snob, but it's just the way it's worked out so far.

I am pretty sure I am getting the Tamron 10-24mm for my birthday. Just wanted to share.

The reviews i saw about the 10-24 were not so great, specially the cromatic aberrations.

If you need that kind of focal distances check the Sigma 10-20.

Hmmm.... 90% of the reviews I read were positive. I guess I shall see. I will post pics.

I just wrote that cause I looked around a loot before picking my wide-angle and the short list according to reviews were the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 10-20 f/3,5

Tamron AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical IF - Review / Test Report - Sample Shots & Verdict

Here the review on the Tammy is not positive, maybe considering the cost.

Well, just trying to help. Just put the pics later.