rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

Get a refurbished Nikon 10-24 DX lens. Nikonusa.com is having a refurbished sale, which ends today!

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Consider the Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6. It's not cheap ($700) but perhaps you can find it used or refurbished.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I had the Tokina 11-16 and immediately shelved it after purchasing the Sigma 8-16. The optical quality is better (MUCH less chromatic aberration), it is much wider, and it does not have the terrible flare problem from which the Tokina suffers. It has no more distortion than the Tokina. Disadvantages compared to the Tokina is that the aperture is 4.5-5.6 (compared to constant 2.8) and it does not accept filters. For me this was not a problem. The Tokina is a good lens too. Another that you might wish to consider is the Nikon 10-24, which has only one real weak point, which is the extreme corners at 10mm. The Sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6 is a good value for the money, but has weak corner sharpness and does not work well against the light. The f3.5 version has horribly soft corners, as does the Tamron 10-24.

VisualMusing Loc: Carrollton, TX

Tamron 15-30 f2.8 (Nikon)

I have been pleased with the results, but as previously stated, you will get distortion that you have to correct in PP unless you are trying for that effect. Other than being heavy and a few lens flares, I have been very pleased with the results. Here are some examples.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

consider looking into the canon 10-18mm ultra wide. the price is right(279) and the reviews very good. good luck in your quest!

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

The Tokina and the Sigma 10-20 are excellent lenses.

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is a very sharp, quality lens... but it's also an older version that's been superseded by the Tokina 11-20mm f2.8. Don't know too much about the new lens, except that it's larger and heavier.

The 11-16mm came in two types for Nikon: the original and a version II. It won't matter with a D7000, but the II has a built in motor to be able to autofocus on all Nikon bodies, while the original and slightly cheaper version doesn't, so would be manual focus only on D5000 or D3000 cameras.

The 11-16mm has very limited range of focal lengths. That's a by-product of it being one of the fastest (f2.8) ultrawide available. There's a bit more range, but added size and weight with the newest lens.

The 11-16mm also is very prone to flare. I know folks who tried it but couldn't use it for that reason, even though they liked other aspects of the lens. (I don't know if the 11-20mm does better... maybe someone else can say or there are online reviews that discuss it.)

Do you really need f2.8 with an ultrawide? For example, are you planning to do night shots where the brighter viewfinder offered by f2.8 might be helpful?

Personally I chose the Tokina 12-24mm f4 instead (which has now been superseded with a 12-28mm f4). It has similar build, much better range of focal lengths, and is well corrected with milder wide angle distortions. It's slightly less sharp than the 11-16mm, but far more flare resistant. It also has a little chromatic aberration, though that's fairly easily corrected in post-processing software. And f4 is plenty fast for an ultrawide (which I'm normally stopping down for increased depth of field, anyway.)



Except for the minor detail that it doesn't exist. Maybe you're thinking of the Tokina 11-20mm f2.8. If I were shopping today, I'd look at that lens and try to get one to test.

But I still don't buy into the obsession with ultrafast ultrawide (f2.8.... or f2.0 if it existed). Just not necessary for most purposes with wide angle lenses and it usually makes for other compromises (more flare, less range of focal lengths, and/or larger/heavier lens). The f4 Tokina 12-24mm has been fine for me. So has a Canon 10-22mm f3.5-5.6 that I've used more recently.

I compared with and felt the image quality of the Tokina was better than the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 and Tamron 10-24mm. The build of the Tokina and Sigma were superior to the Tamron, too, though the latter had the longest warranty. At the time I was shopping and comparing the larger, heavier Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 was much more expensive, so I also avoided it completely. But it's come down in price quite a bit, might be worth a look now. But I can't compare it's image quality.

The widest of the ultrawides for DX is the Sigma 8-16mm... but that does have some pretty strong wide angle distortions, such as you wanted to try to avoid. It's not as much distortion as a completely uncorrected fisheye lens renders, though.

Sigma also offers a 12-24mm, but it's actually a full frame lens and because of that is large and expensive, with quite a bit of distortion, would be a waste of money to only use it on an DX camera.

Also, both the Sigma 8-16mm and 12-24mm cannot use standard filters... they have strongly protruding convex front elements. Most of the other ultrawides use 77mm filters, except for the Toki 11-20mm and Sigma 10-20/3.5, both of which require 82mm.



Yeah, among ultrawides the Canon 10-18mm IS STM is a the best value of all: smallest, lightest, least expensive at $279... and some of the best image quality, as well as the only one with image stabilization.... it's just a little plasticky. The more expensive, better built Canon 10-22mm USM also offers some of the best image quality (but not IS). However both those are Canon EF-S lens and won't work on anything other than Canon cameras. Certainly not on a Nikon D7000.

They'd work well on a D7000, but unfortunately both the ultrawide DX Nikkors are ridiculously expensive, and really no better optically than some of the third party lenses. The 10-24mm costs $900 and the 12-24mm $1100. That's at least double the cost, just to get the Nikkor name.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

Gene: both of those images are crazy good! My question is that they must be HDR (way to much dynamic range for single exposures) and for each overlapping image, how many exposures did you take? If,say, 5, that would be a lot of exposures and a lot of work for each image.

Thanks!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I have the Sigma 10-20 2.8 for my D7000. Used it exclusively in Utah last Spring and happy with the results. You have to be careful to take level shots because those hoodoos will lean in or out a bit depending on whether you're pointing up or down. I didn't think it was all that distracting. It's great when you have a powerful foreground element to anchor the vista.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Hi Gene, for some reason the two panos I thought I attached didn't attach, but you make the case better than I did. A great point is that the pano with the longer focal length captures detail an ultra wide angle lens does not. I've found that while foreground objects appear large and sharp, background objects appear small and soft. I think the wide lenses are more suited for group shots, and interiors than they are for landscapes.

On the other hand, that may be an effect that is desired, a vast landscape that rolls out to a soft, indistinct, eternity.

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

Had the tokina 11-16 loved it !!sold my crop sensor camera so i sold the lens !! bought a d600 ! then a refurb D7100 so i bought a tokina 11-20 2.8 and thrilled with it !

chapin in utah Loc: Utah

Wow! Amazing!
I got to try that too.
Thanks!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

How well do you think that will work on a NIKON camera. Please, at least read the OP BEFORE replying!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

There are quite a few good choices here including a 10.5 Nikon and the 10-24. As was said earlier NIKON is having a 10% OFF REFURBISHED SALE that ENDS TODAY! Other than the OEM brand, I would recommend a Sigma, although there are no 'new breed' wide angles, yet! Best of luck.