10-20 mm lens recommendations? Nikon or other brand

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I'm pleased with my <a href="../photo/8243626&size=lg">Sigma 12-24 MM</a>.</p>

[r._nelson]

<p>Thanks for all the input here.</p>

<p>This may be a tricky question to answer, but how much difference is there between 10mm and 12mm on a DX body?</p>

<p>Cost-wise, the sigma 10-20 is looking like a front runner based on the used market right now. I do own a Tokina lens and it's built well and shoots great. The 11-16mm seems to review well. </p>

<p>PS - Those that posted... nice shooting!</p>

 

[dirtlawyer]

<p>10-20 Sigma. Here is a sample.<a href="../photo/7975614&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7975614-md.jpg" border="0" alt="Kiteboarding" width="679" height="451" /></a></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>how much difference is there between 10mm and 12mm on a DX body?</em></p>

<p>a lot, actually. 2mm on the wide end is considerable, especially if you're shooting landscapes. for people shots, the long end is more useful. having had the 12-24 on DX for four years before upgrading to FX, i can tell you that for seriously wide shots, i'm really digging the 15-30. but again,it all depends on what you're shooting and how you're shooting it. as andreas notes, 8mm on DX can almost be too wide, especially if you like to shoot close-up, as an unwanted foot or hand can get in the frame. this happens at 12mm too. in general, 12mm on DX is usually 'wide enough', especially if you are using an UWA as a lone walkaround lens. but if you're using a 17-50 as the main walkaround and augmenting for every-so-often wide shots with an UWA, then the wider the better.</p>

<p>at this point, the only UWA i'd be hesitant to recommend would be the tamron 10-24, which has less-than-stellar reviews. the sigma and tokina may seem like budget options in terms of price, but not in terms of performance. the sigma is widely reported to be better than the nikkor 10-24 at 10mm and unlike the 8-16 can take filters. the tokinas have the best build and are solid performers, while the nikkor 12-24 is pro-level, the 10-24 not far behind (and has the most versatile range). a used sigma 10-20 would certainly offer bang for the buck, and the fact it can take filters and does at least go to 20mm makes it more than a one-trick pony.</p>

<p>but to answer your question...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>now here's a 12mm DX equiv. shot:</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

 

<p>The difference between 10mm and 12mm is non-trivial, but to me, the bigger advantage is that on a 10-24mm lens, 12mm is no longer at the extreme end of the zoom range so that the quality tends to be a little better than 12mm on a 12-24mm lens.</p>

<div></div>

[bjorn_burton]

<p>I love UWA lenses and i have a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8f for my D90... absolute gem. For a DX UWA lens there is absolutely no lens sharper edge to edge then this lens. Also what is nice the distortion is much better controlled then many and extremely easy to fix. Solid build and you can feel the quality of this glass in your hand doesnt feel cheap. For under 600$ its a steal in my mind.<br>

Only Concerns i will say about this lens...<br>

1. Tends to Flare pretty easy but UWA lenses tend to do that<br>

2. CA tends to be tad higher then others ive seen but also easy to fix.<br>

3. Very limited focal length ( now if your truely into UWA youll rarely go away from that range in the first place esp. landscape, interior, ect.</p>

<p>Now if these concerns dont bother you GET THIS LENS you wont be dissapointed!</p>

[r._nelson]

<p>@ Shun, Eric: Thanks for the comparisons/pics. I do find that information helpful.</p>

<p>Thanks all, for your contribution's. I think I'll be going Sigma or Tokina.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>R.</p>