Nikon Mount Wide Angle: Sigma, Tokina, Nikon?

newb

Ok so, Ive been lookin at these 3 brands for my next lens purchase, which will be a wide angle zoom. Specifically, the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, the Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5, and the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. The lens will be mainly for car shows, ranging from very harsh lighting to very dim lighting. I will be shooting mostly very close up at the short end of any of these lenses. Also, Im lookin to get the best hand held results to reduce the amount of stuff I need to carry.

For the Nikon, I like zoom range (even though I dont anticipate using the long end). The max aperture seems like it would be fast enough. The reviews seem to be pretty good. Price isnt bad, but its the highest of the 3.

For the Tokina, I get the feeling I might miss the long end (again, even though I dont know that I would use it all that much). The speed is the best of the 3. The reviews seem just as good as the Nikon. The price is also the lowest.

For the Sigma, the zoom range is a little more apealing than the Tokina. The speed still seems fine, like the Nikon. The reviews vary. The price is middle of the road. Sigma has a few wide zooms, should I be lookin at a different one instead of the 10-20 f/3.5?

Also, what ever lens I purchase will take its place between my Pro Optic 8mm fisheye (which I absolutely love), and my Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. Itll be more of a standard lens, while I use the 8mm for special effect and the 18-55 to fill the gap to my telephoto.

Thank you for any insight!

r3t1awr3yd

I owned the Tokina 12-24 f/4 (which I bought because of it's stellar reviews over the Nikon 12-24)... and then a couple months later they released the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.

With these super wide lenses, you won't miss the far end because... well, that defeats the purpose of wide-angle lenses lol.

Did I mention the 11-16 is a wonderfully constant f/2.8??

jziegler

Don't ignore the older variable Sigma 10-20. In many reviews, it does better than the new constant 3.5 version and is one of the cheapest options. I have one and have been happy with it. I've found that I haven't missed the faster lens for a wide as much as for a tele. Not too much demand for shooting action with a wide, so a tripod (even a tabletop one or a Gorillapod) will frequently do the job.

Pupator

I love my Tokina 12-24 f/4. I took it out to the ballpark on Saturday and had a grand time looking "wide."

islandak

You'll probably be happy with any of them.
If speed is the deciding factor, the Tokina 11-16 wins. I bought it for just that reason. What iso can you get away with on the D7000? I can bump my D90 up to iso800 and get acceptable pictures. Maybe you can make up for the extra stop that way.

Sometimes I do wish I had a bit more zoom. But..., that's what the other lenses are for right?

That being said, all of the lenses you are considering (and the variable sigma) have good reviews.

For me it came down to speed vs zoom vs wide (10mm). I decided speed was my limiting factor. If you can figure that out, your decision should be easier.

Pupator

islandak wrote: »

If speed is the deciding factor, the Tokina 11-16 wins. I bought it for just that reason. What iso can you get away with on the D7000? I can bump my D90 up to iso800 and get acceptable pictures. Maybe you can make up for the extra stop that way.

I can bump up the D7000 ISO 3200 without the slightest concern, as long as the exposure is right. ISO 6400 works in certain situations, and even ISO 12800 in a real pinch with good noise reduction after the fact.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page12.asp

newb

Thanks for the input everyone.

And yes, ISO 3200 is very doable with the D7000. Max aperture is not going to be the deciding factor when I make up my mind.

DsrtVW

I have the D7000 and the 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina it rocks. You will never be sorry going for the faster lens. It is there if you ever need it. It is a well built and sharp lens. Then get a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 then a Tokina 50-135 f2,8 and you can cover just about everything at a car show. That kit is always with me. Even though you may not use the wide apertures all the time they are there if you need it. Especially for shallow depth of field for those special car shots when you want to isolate detail on a part of a car. Like a hood ornament or emblem.

16mm f3.2 I must of turned the dial because I was intending to shoot it wide open. one of the first shots taken with the combo. Sorry I do not have any cars i shoot nature and landscapes mostly

Matthew Saville

Tokina 11-16 for hand-held low-light shots, it's just phenomenal wide open. (And hand-holding photojournalists often upgrade to full-frame, in which case the Tokina continues to be a workhorse as a 16mm FX "prime", again with amazing sharpness and image quality.)

Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 does however perform very, very well for landscape photographers who need a little bit more range and don't care about the aperture as much. I would recommend it, as others mentioned, over the newer f/3.5 constant aperture version.

The Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 12-24 are both built like tanks, sharp, and extend the range to 24 if you're less of an extreme-wide landscape shooter, and more of a general wide angle landscape shooter.

All in all, I think the Tokina 11-16 takes the cake for sheer performance, and the Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6 takes the cake for value and range.


=Matt=

catspaw

danged thread. you are making me want to pick up/try a 11-16 Tokina now, even with fullframe. I intensely dislike the size of the Nikon 12-24, even if it weren't so expensive.

hmm. well worth pondering! Matt, you should get kick backs from Tokina for this

Matthew Saville

catspaw wrote: »

danged thread. you are making me want to pick up/try a 11-16 Tokina now, even with fullframe. I intensely dislike the size of the Nikon 12-24, even if it weren't so expensive.

hmm. well worth pondering! Matt, you should get kick backs from Tokina for this

I assume you mean 14-24, when you talk about size and expensiveness.

And yep, the Tokina 11-16 is a great full-frame alternative to the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and 16-35 f/4 VR, if you already have another zoom like the 24-70 to cover general wide angle stuff. That's what I do. I can get away with 24mm 90% of the time, and would just slap on the Tokina 11-16 every now and then when I absolutely need to get as wide as possible on either full-frame or crop.

And the Tokina 11-16 is the ONLY lens in Nikon mount to hit f/2.8 at 16mm and still allow front filters. ;-)

=Matt=

catspaw

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I assume you mean 14-24, when you talk about size and expensiveness.

And yep, the Tokina 11-16 is a great full-frame alternative to the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and 16-35 f/4 VR, if you already have another zoom like the 24-70 to cover general wide angle stuff. That's what I do. I can get away with 24mm 90% of the time, and would just slap on the Tokina 11-16 every now and then when I absolutely need to get as wide as possible on either full-frame or crop.

And the Tokina 11-16 is the ONLY lens in Nikon mount to hit f/2.8 at 16mm and still allow front filters. ;-)

=Matt=

yeah.... 14-24. I'm not good at keeping numbers straight :P (yes, I'm a stockbroker, hush, it makes my job more fun this way).

I've the 24-70 and a 8mm fisheye, but not much in between. the 20mm is nice but not very sharp and I often want to go WIDER than that.

newb

Great info, thanks!

I do use filters when I have the oppertunity (different gradual ones, and a CPL). The CPL filter is a must, and one that I need to use more lol.

Im noticing that the Tokina is sold out from most ot the typical sources. Last time I was after somethin in the same situation (my D7000), it was well worth the wait.

DaC

newb wrote: »

Great info, thanks!

Im noticing that the Tokina is sold out from most ot the typical sources. Last time I was after somethin in the same situation (my D7000), it was well worth the wait.

I just got one from Penn Camera in Washington DC. They have site on line (not that strong of one but it is there).
Not an employee but a very happy customer.
I got the lens after renting it.
John

newb

Thanks for the lead, Ill check em out.