• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Choosing a Wide Angle Lens

D

dmw16

Diamond Member
I am finishing up my glass spending spree and the last item on the list is a WA lens for my D5100. It will be a walk around lens for vacation and also for landscape and architecture photos.

I was originally planning on the Nikon 10-24, but they are hard to find and also towards the top of what I want to spend. I also looked at the Tokina, but their 11-16 is a little shorter than the others I've looked at and also the AF isn't supported on my D5100. Additionally, the price is creeping up on my other top choice.

At this point I think I've narrowed my choices down to the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and the Nikon 12-24. I found a deal on the Nikon so for the sake of argument let's say it's only about $100 over the Sigma.

The price of the Sigma is very attractive and I like the extra 2mm at the wide end over the Nikon. Conversely I like the extra 4mm on the long end of the Nikon as far as flexibility is concerned. On a cropped sensor I am thinking I might rather have the 2mm at the wide end as opposed to the 4mm on the long end since my next lens up is an 18-135. But for ultra WA I already have a 10.5mm fisheye

I have also heard that the Sigma isn't as sharp as the Nikon. But that might be more tech/spec related than reality for an amateur such as myself.

Any thoughts or advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.
 
Has it really been that long since the WA lenses were released or updated?

No experience with any of these unfortionately. I can attest though that the Canon 10-22 is amazing. It pisses me off that it's so good.
 
I'm not a Canon shooter, but my dad has the 10-22 and I've taken some shots with it and it is a fantastic lens. Not until the Nikon 14-24 showed up was there a super wide zoom that could really compete. In this case, the latter beats it, but that lens is a monster...neither here nor there.

Before this thread goes any further though, what do you currently have? We could better dictate what you should opt for at that point.
 
You have an 18-135mm already? Why are you concerned with having range from 18-24 then? Switching out lenses may be a hassle, but I wouldn't base lens choices on this minor inconvenience. I know I'm not often in a situation where I have to switch between a UWA and a zoom, and you always trade off something for more range. Edit: What I wanted to say here is that wide-angle shots aren't normally spur of the moment kind of shots. So you usually have time to switch out your lens from your 18-135 to your wide angle for the wide shot.

You already mentioned how you think the extra mm's at the wide end are more important than the wide, and it seems like you know why so I won't go into that. Just know you were spot on with that thinking - invest in the wide end.

I have the Tokina 11-16, and I absolutely love it on my D7000 and even manual focusing on my wife's D5100 if I need to. Tokina announced pretty recently a new version of the 11-16 coming out that should have improved optics as well as an internal autofocus motor. This might be worth checking out. I think it was slated for the later half of this year, but will have a higher starting price. The actual street price could end up being lower though.

I chose the Tokina over the Sigma and Nikon because in the reviews I saw it had the least barrel distortion and highest MTF resolution numbers. The range also felt the best suited since I own a Nikon 16-85 as well as a Sigma 17-50 so I was primarily concerned about the wide end. If you don't want the Tokina due to price, then the Nikon would be my second choice because of the constant aperture. The Tokina was my first constant aperture lens, and I swore after using it I would buy nothing but constant apertures from then on.

Also worth noting, if you're not planning to use a tripod all the time, then the larger aperture of the Tokina might allow you to hand-hold some shots that would not be possible with the others.
 
Last edited:
If the Nikon 12-24 is only $100 more than the Sigma, I'd heavily lean towards the Nikon. It's going to be AF-S, so no concerns with a camera body with no built-in focus motor, and it's a fixed f-stop, versus the variable one of the Sigma.

Also, you're guaranteed compatibility with future bodies with the Nikon, but not with the Sigma (I bought a current Sigma 1.4x teleconverter that would not work with my D90 and 80-200 f/2.8 D lens, but worked fine on a D90 with the new 70-200).
 
Last edited:
randomrogue said:
Has it really been that long since the WA lenses were released or updated?

No experience with any of these unfortionately. I can attest though that the Canon 10-22 is amazing. It pisses me off that it's so good.
Click to expand...

No, that's an old comparison but it does have the two lenses he is considering.

JR
 
I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 and would recommend it with a caveat - buy from an authorized dealer with a good return policy. About half of the copies I've tried had some sort of centering defect. For $100 more I would probably go with the Nikon (better QC).
 
Thanks for all the replies.

As for what I already have, my glass collection is: Nikon 18-135mm, Sigma 30mm f1.4, and a Nikon 10.5mm fisheye.

I decided to get a wide angle lens because I am interested in landscape and architectural photography. I also thought and gathered from a few friends that the 10-20 or 12-24 is a great walk around lens for vacation given what I am interested in shooting.

I did like the Tokina, but I don't like shooting without the ability to autofocus. The 10.5mm fisheye isn't an AF-S but that's a little bit less cumbersome, but for a walk-around lens I like the option to autofocus.

At $100 difference I figured that the Nikon would be a better lens even if I'm giving up 2mm on the wide end. I feel somewhat ok with that since I do have the 10.5mm - granted a fisheye is very different than a regular 10mm lens, but at least I do have an ultra wide option if I really want it.

As for quality I heard mixed opinions on that and it was another thing that made me lean towards the Nikon glass. My Sigma 30mm is a well built lens that seemed to have no issue, but it seemed there were more complaints with the 10-20mm.

I know either lens is better than I am and won't be the limiting factor, but glass is expensive and I want to make the right moves.

So thanks again for all the help and keep the input coming 🙂
 
Remember, you can rent one of these for a week at a fraction of their cost and put it through it paces.
 
i thought tokina just released a brand new updated 11-16 for the same price. Are you sure it wont work with the d5100?
 
Looking at your current lens collection I'd grab the Tokina 11-16. I had the Sigma 10-20 prior to that, and the 11-16 is superior in both image quality and available aperatures.

You're gonna love that Sigma 30 1.4 (if you have a good copy, that is. Stupid Sigma and their quality control issues...).
 
shocksyde said:
Looking at your current lens collection I'd grab the Tokina 11-16. I had the Sigma 10-20 prior to that, and the 11-16 is superior in both image quality and available aperatures.

You're gonna love that Sigma 30 1.4 (if you have a good copy, that is. Stupid Sigma and their quality control issues...).
Click to expand...

I didn't think that the current Tokina has an internal focus motor. That was the reason I skipped that one.

I ended up ordering the 12-24, but couldn't cancel the order for the 10-20 so I may try both and then send the one I don't pick back.

As for the Sigma 30 1.4 I love it so far. I haven't shot a ton with it, but it seems sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top