Wide Angle choices

[rjpierrard]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I'm trying to decide the wide angle lens I can actually afford for a Nikon D90 (looking to spend under $500). Right now it looks like my most promising choices are (tied for first): the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4.0 and the Sigma 17-35/2.8-4.0, and the Tamron 12-24/3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-35 has excellent tested image quality, the Tamron 12-24 midrange IQ (bad corners), and the Sigma wasn't tested on slrgear.</p>

<p>Any suggestions/experience with these or similarly priced wide-angle lenses? Please post replies!</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[jerry_coleman]

<p>Rob,<br>

Take a look at the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 At-X116 Pro Dx for nikon Af-s, I think you<br /><em> might prefer this better.<br /></em><br>

</p>

<h3 ><a onmousedown="return rwt(this,'','','','5','AFQjCNHeTlAbmu6lb5rz2VoV4eIu-LXn4A','','0CEUQFjAE')" href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FTokina-11-16mm-2-8-AT-X116-Nikon%2Fdp%2FB0014Z5XMK&rct=j&q=tokina%2011-16mm%20nikon&ei=2FMNTfKzNcOclge5lNy6BQ&usg=AFQjCNHeTlAbmu6lb5rz2VoV4eIu-LXn4A&cad=rja"><em> </em><em></em><em></em><strong><br /></strong></a></h3>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>For actual wide angle zooms in that price range...</p>

<p>Tokina 12-24 f4 or 11-16 f2.8. The 12-24 is more useful for more people, the 11-16 might have better image quality, but it's over your price range.</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6.</p>

<p>Tamron has one or two, I think they're awful.</p>

<p>For most people, I think the Tokina 12-24 f4 is best in that price range.The one without the built-in motor will work great with your D90 and is only 400 bucks new I think.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a> is a good additional source for lens reviews. More objective objective reviews, if you will.<br>

Usually only one sample tested, but that's generally true of reviews these days.</p>

<p> </p>

[drjoder]

<p>Are you talking about a super wide-angle or a more typical wide-angle? From the responses, I'm a bit confused. What about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? At B&H, after mail-in rebate, it is $549--a used one at the same place was $579! If you can stretch your budget slightly, I think you would be pleased with the image quality, the flexibility of getting out to 50mm, and its low-light capability. I use it a lot on my D90 as my main walk-around lens. For a more extreme wide-angle, I use the Nikkor 10-24, but that might be out of your budget and, for me anyway, is not as useful day-to-day as the Tamron. Certainly check out the reviews as JDM has suggested.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>I've had two wide angle primes: a Tamron 10-24, and a Tokina 12-24 f/4. For $500, I think you can do well with a Tokina 12-24, or if you stretch your budget a little further, you can get the 11-16 f/2.8. Those are solid bets.</p>

<p>A lot of people say the Tamron's aren't good... having owned it, and made comparisons, I would strongly disagree. Yes the corners are softer than most other lenses. However, it's really nothing to complain about. I've compared the 10-24 corners to the Tokina 12-24 corners, in the exact same pics, taken in the exact same conditions, and the differences are really minor.</p>

<p>When I got the Tokina however, I was shocked at how bad the CA was. This is all correctable, but it's the most CA I've ever seen in any lens: roughly 4-6 pixels worth wide open. I didn't think the Tokina was a 'superb' build quality either as people say. The focus ring is wobbly, and there are exposed screws (i think that's cutting corners). The Tamron certainly has worse build quality, but it isn't nearly as bad as people say or like to think it is. The tolerances are tight. I think much of it is a perception of weight, since the Tokina weighs a lot and the Tamron is really light. That said, I *hated* the manual focus motor the Tamron: you're not supposed to turn the focus ring when set to Autofocus or you torque the motor. I *hate* that.</p>

<p>I also think that my Tamron handled flare a bit better than the Tokina does.<br /><br /><br>

I sound like I'm recommending the Tamron, but I'm just saying a lot of people dismiss it based on the reviews or what other people say, and I think it would be premature to dismiss it. I didn't think I'd miss the 10-12 range when I switched to the Tokina... but I really do.</p>

<p>That said, all in all, the Tokina 12-24 is a better lens. It's sharper... the focus switch mechanism works way better, and superficially I think the colors are more accurate, but that may be more of an issue with my cameras WB than anything. The Tokinas are the safe bets. Test the copy when you get it (there are lemons) but if you find a gem, it will serve you well.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p><a href="http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/850/tokinavstamron.jpg">http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/850/tokinavstamron.jpg</a></p>

<p>This is a comparison I made with a Tokina vs a Tamron. Both pictures were taken at f/8, at 12mm. I let the camera choose the exposure time. The top row is a comparison of the corners. The bottom row is a comparison of CA.</p>

<p>Looking at the top row, it's hilarious how the minor difference is: Tokina (considered awesome), and Tamron (considered terrible). In contrast, the CA on the Tokina, in my opinion is wretched. Look at the purple outline over the car. It's barely noticeable in the Tamron, but it's extremely noticeable in the Tokina.</p>

<p>I actually returned the first copy of the Tokina I got, thinking there was something wrong with the lens causing all the CA. The 2nd copy was only slightly better. The CA cleans up easily, so it's not a huge issue... but when I see CA this bad, it's a significant negative mark.</p>

<p>As for colors though, if you look at the asphalt, you will notice that it's a different shade of grey in the Tamron. I always felt like my Tamron had a slightly Cyan cast.</p>

[phil_burt]

<p>Robert.<br>

I can only tell you about one choice and that is the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. I bought one used from a fellow lister here and really love it. One can make serious shots with it and one can make some funny shots with it. Depends on the way you aim it.<br>

I would not hesitate to recommend this one, I have it on my D 90 if that is any help. If you can find an old one used it would be the way to go, the new model is faster but I don't think you need that on this kind of a lens.<br>

Have fun shooting ....<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Thanks for the responses!</p>

<p>@Phillip Tam: thank you for the detailed review and comparison of the two lenses in your experience, I'll consider both carefully.</p>

<p>@Daniel Joder: I'm talking about ultrawide angle - preferably 100*+ as a fairly standard wide 24mm lens is 84*. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 doesn't go wide enough to consider spending that kind of money on it when I could easily get a better quality lens of similar FOV for half the price.</p>

<p>@JDM: thanks for the link, that will be very helpful!</p>

<p>As for the lenses:</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16 f/2.8: I would certainly like the fast aperture and wide FOV, but the price makes me a bit hesitant; if I can extend my budget I'll give it more consideration.</p>

<p>Tokina 12-24/4: the price is on the high end but the IQ is amazing across f/4-16 based on the slrgear tests.</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20/4-5.6: the slower aperture compared to others in consideration is a bit of a con, but the IQ for this lens is given as quite amazing, including in the f/20 range. Thanks for the suggestions.</p>

<p>I still haven't decided but at least I have more to go on now, thank you!</p>