DSLRUsers.com

I'm after a bit of advice, as I can't decide which way to go on this one;
I currently have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 lens and use it quite a bit (I did some traveling last year and this lens stayed on the camera [D90] the entire time .. I had also taken the 35mm f/2 and 18-200 VR). As I use this for general photography though, I found it quite slow at times.
I'm not sure what my best option would be, either a) buy the new Sigma 10-20 f3.5 or b) buy the Nikkor 10-24 f/3.4-4.5.
While the Sigma will be faster, the Nikkor will give me that little extra reach, but, is the extra cost worth it? It's also a question of which has better image quality?

Has anyone had any experience with the above lenses? Is there a lens or combination I'm missing?
Thanks for your help

Just recently I bought a Nikon 16-35 F4....I love it...very sharp, has VR so that's a plus for low light photography....

More expensive again but worth the dough....

I have not heard much good about the F/3.5 flat version of the Sigma 10-20, rather a sad story of a lens that is built to a spec regardless of the compromises (increased CA being one of the prominent ones). As for the Nikkor, there really is no point in buying the same lens (no increase in maximum aperture and minimal increase in length). I would be looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 personally.

Nothing wrong with the 16-35 f/4 VR, but it is not a genuine ultrawide on the crop bodies, beautiful medium zoom though on one. On a FX body it makes for a brilliant ultrawide!

I would be looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 personally

I recently purchased one of these, its a great lens, however it is what I would classify as a specialised lens, for example you can't really use it as a walkaround lens unless you are really wanting all shots to be ultrawide.

It may be prudent to look thru your last 6 months of pictures and establish what is your typical focal length - this may well rule the tokina 11-16mm out , or rule it in

That nikkor 10-24 is pricey too...

Thanks for the replies. I really do find myself using the 10mm and 20mm end of the lens most. Works nicely as a walk around, and to capture grand buildings.
If the Nikkor 10-24 is good, then I'm prepared to pay the extra for it. I wouldn't however consider the 16-35, or the 11-16 as I really want the 10mm, and the range to at least 20mm. I guess I'm best sticking with what I've got, perhaps something better will come along in the future, else get the nikkor 24mm prime for some lower light shots...?

The Sigma 10-20 is a heap of fun, and one of my favourite lenses.

In terms of quality, there's no doubt that it's not a Nikkor, but for the work that this lens gets used for, that isn't an issue. As a fun lens, and for those wide shots that we sometimes feel a need to get, it's just perfect.

Your suggestion of getting the 24mm prime is a good one. That lens is sharp, fast, compact, light and relatively inexpensive.

gstark wrote:Your suggestion of getting the 24mm prime is a good one. That lens is sharp, fast, compact, light and relatively inexpensive.

Inexpensive unless your talking about the AF-S 24mm f/1.4G....one came into the shop today...I have been avoiding playing with it.

aim54x wrote:

gstark wrote:Your suggestion of getting the 24mm prime is a good one. That lens is sharp, fast, compact, light and relatively inexpensive.

Inexpensive unless your talking about the AF-S 24mm f/1.4G....one came into the shop today...I have been avoiding playing with it.

Would def be considering the f/2.8 version - the f/1.4 is physically quite large too, isn't it? As stark pointed out, it's compact and light, which is part of the reason it interests me (the others being that it's sharp, fast, and relatively inexpensive! )

Finner42 wrote:

aim54x wrote:

gstark wrote:Your suggestion of getting the 24mm prime is a good one. That lens is sharp, fast, compact, light and relatively inexpensive.

Inexpensive unless your talking about the AF-S 24mm f/1.4G....one came into the shop today...I have been avoiding playing with it.

Would def be considering the f/2.8 version - the f/1.4 is physically quite large too, isn't it? As stark pointed out, it's compact and light, which is part of the reason it interests me (the others being that it's sharp, fast, and relatively inexpensive! )

I finally broke and played with the AF-S 24mm f/1.4G that was in store....and sold it. Such a beautiful lens, AF seems fast and responsive, couldnt see any distortion or CA (on a D700). BUT this was a quick 5min demo to a customer so I would be more comfortable giving a REAL opinion on this monster if I could get some real usage of it (thinks about demo pics)

Any thoughts on the new Sigma 8-16 (so very wide!!) which is about to come out. I notice that Adorama now actually have it listed for US$700.