10-20 mm lens recommendations? Nikon or other brand

<p>I am looking for a wide angle lens for my D90, likely a 10-20mm-ish. I own a 17-50, but need to go wider for a few specific uses. Amazing IQ is not my primary concern, but I need good quality. I am thinking there is something used out there that would fit my needs... but what? This lens needs to be affordable (opposed to a fast, new lens). It can be Nikon, Sigma, or any of the major 3-rd party brands. I don't need VR, but wouldn't mind auto-focus.</p>

<p>What would anyone recommend, and why? </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 I used it with much pleasure on my DX camera's.</p>

 

<p>Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 I used it with much pleasure on my DX camera's.</p>

 

<p>Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 I used it with much pleasure on my DX camera's.</p>

 

<p>You must really like it, huh? (Just kidding - your reply posted 3 times)! Thanks -</p>

<p>Well, I guess that's 3 votes from Hans! I have the 10-20mm Sigma older 'slow' version and have been very happy with it. Software can remove its unusual moustache distortion at the wide end. If you ever intend going FX, I just got an old Nikon 18-35mm at a good price, impressed so far on my D300, trying on a D700 tomorrow. In terms of captured FOV, the DX 10-20mm (FX =15-30mm) compares favourably to the FX 18-35mm.</p>

<p>I'm having a great time with my sigma 8-16 mm ..:-)<br>

here's one of the many reviews.. : <a href="http://manessinger.com/tag/sigma-8-16mm-f4-5-5-6-dc-review">http://manessinger.com/tag/sigma-8-16mm-f4-5-5-6-dc-review</a></p>

<p>I'm very pleased with the Nikon 10-24mm AF lens. </p>

<p>Minimal distortion at the wide end and excellent performance throughout the zoom range.</p>

<p>It's rectilinear throughout the focal length range, not fisheye.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>Slightly less wide, Tokina 12-24 f/4. Build as a tank, sharp, and not very expensive. But if you need 10mm, yeah, it's obviously the wrong choice.</p>

<p>Here's also a quick sample shot with the sigma 8-16mm , unprocessed, just shrunk from the NEF..</p><div></div>

<p>a big question here is whether you need to use filters or not. its kind of a pain sometimes when shooting bright daylight scenes with an UWA which cant take ND grads. the sigma 8-16 and 12-24 cant take filters, but the 10-20s do, as do the tokina 12-24 and 11-16. personally, if i were you i'd be looking at the 11-16 since you already have the 17-50. its main advantage is high IQ and constant 2.8 aperture. the limited range would be less of a problem.</p>

<p>i have a tokina 12-24 for my DX camera, and a sigma 15-30 for my FX camera. here's what 15mm on Fx looks like:</p>

<p>sorry, here's the pic:</p><div></div>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 is a joy to use. And when I'm at f5.6, I'm at the sweet spot of the lens instead of wide open, which I like. </p>

Well, I have three wide zooms, a Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and now the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6.

Of these three the 8-16 is the most expensive, the most extreme, and it does not take filters.

 

My Sigma 10-20 was a good and versatile lens, but with the years it seems to have become de-centered.

Maybe it needs service. While I used it, it was a very good lens.

 

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 has a very restricted zoom range and it does not focus near enough for my taste

(30cm vs 24cm of all the others). It's of excellent quality, but you could as well use a wide prime. If you

have no problem with these restrictions, the Tokina is a fantastic lens. Personally I think it would do well for

interiors where you don't need 8 or 10mm and where you need a fast lens.

 

At the moment I am perfectly happy with the Sigma 8-16. I use it mostly for landscapes, and for that it is

no problem, that the lens is not really fast. It also obviously shines in large-scale interiors like cathedrals,

etc. Starting at only f4.5, the lens is surprisingly small, in fact it is the smallest of my three ultra-wides. At

the wide end, it really needs some practice, because it's almost as wide as a fish, and you also have many

of the same problems, for instance making sure that you keep your feet out of the image :)

 

If you don't need 8mm or can't live without filters, the probably best solution on DX is the Nikon 10-24. I

don't have it, but there seems to be general consensus, that it is at least as good as the Sigma 10-20, plus

it has an even more versatile range. It's the most expensive though.

 

I suppose the easiest to get used, will be the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. I wouldn't recommend my copy though :)

No idea how they age in general. Make sure you try it before you buy.

 

Another choice that you may be able to get used, is the Nikon 12-24/4.

<p>one more @15mm</p><div></div>

<p>Hello Andreas,<br />I was already eyeballing the Sigma 8-16mm when I found your review, and its actually your review(s) that helped me choose the Sigma 8-16 mm , so htanks for that ! :-)<br>

For me this one adds what I was missing on the Nikon 12-24, and together they make a fine couple ( for me that is...).</p>

<p>I just bought the Tamron 10-24mm and so far have been happy with it, especially since there's a rebate on it now. As an added bonus it's useable on full-frame cameras from 15-24mm.</p>

<p>One more vote for Sigma 10-20 4/5.6.<br>

Here's the most recent shot I took through it...</p>

<div></div>

<p>I happen to have the older Tokina 12-24 and am pleased with it although as others have pointed out, it is a 12,, wide end versus 10mm and that makes a fair amount of difference compared to the "long" end where one often has overlapping coverage anyways.</p>

<p>Well I can only advise on one wide angle and that is the Sigma 10-20 that I have. I use it on my D 90 and I really love it. Can be a very serious lens but can also be a lot of fun depending on how you line your shot up. I have the older f4-5.6 and I do not see any limitations with it at all.<br>

I add my vote along with all of those from Hans.<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>I'd go for the Tokina</p>

<p>I liked the Sigma 10-20mm very much, despite the 20mm f5.6 aperture. Overall I believe it is a better performer at 10mm than the Nikon 10-24mm is, but only just. I like the Nikon 10-24mm range, as I end up shooting at 24mm a lot when I have that lens mounted on my camera. But even then, I use the 16-85mm for 80% of my work vs. the 10-24mm and other lenses for the remaining 20%.</p>

<p>I just bought a Tokina 12-24mm. Buy it. I paid $330.00 for mine in like new condition with a Hoya UV filter. A steal. I'm a Location Manager for TV/Film and shoot houses, property, architectural interiors practically everyday. The lens as great contrast and controls distortion at the widest angles quite well...better than even a lot of the most expensive wide-angles. From 24mm to 35mm (DX focal length) it is practically distortion free. Best lens purchase ever.</p><div></div>

<p>I have used my sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 now for 2 years and I love it. It does a great job. I can't compare to any others as I have not used it and have not had a problem with it on my D300.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Sigma 10-20. I have used for several years as my prime lens. First on my D70s and now on the D7000. It has some minor quirks that the reviewers have hit on, but I never noticed them when using the lens. It is probably not as robust as the glass you can buy at twice the price, but well worth what you can pick it up for. I do use a circular polarizer on it from time to time, but on a lens this wide, it does produce bizarre results on occasion.</p>