10-24 zoom lens for Nikon options? I have my eye on the Nikkor 10-24mm, but even refurbished it is $700. I see a Sigma 10-20mm for around $400 and a similar Tamron, anyone have any...

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I have my eye on the Nikkor 10-24mm, but even refurbished it is $700. I see a Sigma 10-20mm for around $400 and a similar Tamron, anyone have any personal experience with the other brands and what are your preferences and comparisons? Dpreview seems to show the Tamron has the softer focus on the corners than the Sigma. I assume the Nikkor is better at the corners but does not have a review on Dpreview.

MtnMan Loc: ID

georgevedwards wrote:

I have my eye on the Nikkor 10-24mm, but even refurbished it is $700. I see a Sigma 10-20mm for around $400 and a similar Tamron, anyone have any personal experience with the other brands and what are your preferences and comparisons? Dpreview seems to show the Tamron has the softer focus on the corners than the Sigma. I assume the Nikkor is better at the corners but does not have a review on Dpreview.

The 10-24 is a great lens. Too bad you just missed Nikon's annual sale. I bought mine used from a UHHer for $600 a couple of years ago. It was in new condition.

You might try eBay or KEH.

The downside is that it does not have VR. I do landscape so want low ISO and relatively high f-stop and at times need to shoot handheld.

The comparable Tokina gets excellent reviews.

I just got a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 to replace my Nikon kit 18-55. It is awesome.

Check DXOMark.com to compare.

picpiper Loc: California

georgevedwards wrote:

I have my eye on the Nikkor 10-24mm, but even refurbished it is $700. I see a Sigma 10-20mm for around $400 and a similar Tamron, anyone have any personal experience with the other brands and what are your preferences and comparisons? Dpreview seems to show the Tamron has the softer focus on the corners than the Sigma. I assume the Nikkor is better at the corners but does not have a review on Dpreview.

I engaged in the same search for an UWA lens about a year ago for a European river trip. Bought the Tokina 11-16 DX II (has AF). Tokina 11-16 vs Nikon 10-24 Google searches turn up many good hits like:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38187654
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigital/discuss/72157618461773425/

I bought it for the fixed f2.8, the excellent photos you can search for on Flickr, and because of the claims that it was mechanically robust.

I can certainly attest to the robustness. Being a neck strap AND wrist strap type of guy I was horrified when I stood up from a seat on a London train and my D5100 with the Tokina lens fell from my lap to the floor. I saw it going down, grabbed at the neck strap, but didn't break the fall. It landed lens first and I immediately thought, "Well, there's $522 down the drain". Turns out the lens was fine, but the D5100 was dead - mirror was stuck because the pin was knocked out of it's socket.

I appreciate reviews and forum discussions, but find the best way to judge a lens and cameras is to search directly on Flickr (or Google Photos/WebAlbums.)

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Yes that Tokina looks good! I am seeing two versions, the newer one only slightly more expensive at "street prices", still under $500, yet the list price for the old one is almost double. Is the old one better? What is the difference?

MtnMan wrote:

The 10-24 is a great lens. Too bad you just missed... (show quote)

MtnMan Loc: ID

georgevedwards wrote:

Yes that Tokina looks good! I am seeing two versions, the newer one only slightly more expensive at "street prices", still under $500, yet the list price for the old one is almost double. Is the old one better? What is the difference?

One might be f2.8. That usually doubles the price...or more.

I don't see a need for my 10-24 because I use it for Landscape so usually set the f-stop to f16 or more. An f4 lens is fine for me. But if you had applications for the f2.8 that might be the choice for you.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Not in my present financial condition! Of course we always want the Ferrari, but sometimes have to settle for the Kia. I got the 50mm Prime lens with the f1.4 but found it to have as many drawbacks as advantages, it wasn't the "magic lens" I was hoping for. The depth of field was incredibly shallow wide open. Interestingly enough, I discovered a whole new aesthetic was sort "developed by force" to utilize this: photos with various portions of the subject out of focus. Sort of like politicians taking a negative and spinning it into a positive, or: if you say something wrong enough times it becomes true. I have also since acquiring an f1.4 lens become a big fan of Bokeh whereas I used to be strictly an Ansel Adams fan.
Actually I was hoping to use the wide angle mainly so I could take paying jobs like house interiors for selling houses and indoor group photos where you can't stand back far enough to get everybody in the picture, which I have already done with an 18mm and it wasn't quite enough.

MtnMan wrote:

One might be f2.8. That usually doubles the price...or more.

I don't see a need for my 10-24 because I use it for Landscape so usually set the f-stop to f16 or more. An f4 lens is fine for me. But if you had applications for the f2.8 that might be the choice for you.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I had a similar experience: I had one of the original 5 megapixel Canon D60 cameras, made of Titanium, I had a Tamron lens ($500 zoom) on it and it was dropped, putting a crack in the end of the lens housing, which eventually over time worsened till it was unusable. The Canon still works fine to this day. I was entering Andrews Air Force base for an air show right after 9/11, they searched my little camera bag in case I was a terrorist with a bomb in it, but didn't zip it back up when they shoved it back at me I picked it up and out fell the camera on the floor. I still blame it on Islam and their damn Jihad which uses religion to extol violence. As for Flicker, I have tried it several times but am generally confused by it, it seems like too much is there for me to find my around. Sort of like Light Room. I got it with the Cloud subscription but can't make heads or tails out of it. I know it works well for some people. I love Photoshop and its Browser, and so far nothing else really does more for me. I am interested in working with the image, not cataloging.

picpiper wrote:

I engaged in the same search for an UWA lens about... (show quote)

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

About 2-years ago, I purchased from my local camera store, a Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II (DX) lens.
I am quite happy with it: http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1024_diII.php#ad-image-0

Currently $449 new at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20663591.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjw0fOoBRDn88Pol8bqhN0BEiQARGVJKk0OfGl9nuR1np9d3f4Ec4kjsJzaWRt5hGKR2hD62AAaApH28P8HAQ Used about $370 from various websites.

This Easter weekend, Bill Hudson will be taking this lens to Hawaii for a few days of family vacation.
Here is my 10-mm capture of a turn-of-the-century 2-6-2 Prairie type VC 2 oil-burning steam engine.

2-6-2 Prairie type VC 2 oil-burning steam engine at 10-mm focal length

(Download)

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I would go for it if the price was right, I actually saw one for like $179 at Adorama, but when I went to grab it it said "page removed". Hudson seems big on it, Rockwell not so. So far as I can see even from your download when magnified and comparing it to Dpreview tests, it does seem a little soft in the corners (but then they qualify that by saying so are others)...Rockwell says the Tokina is better than Nikon's own version, and is similar in price to the Tamron. I was amazed with my Tamron 28-300/Canon D 60 for many years after graduating from a Pentax K-1000 film camera, but eventually I started to want something a little sharper to sell at the Gallery. So far Nikon has delivered. Do you sell professionally or is it for personal use? Of course I too have used lots of stuff that was not reviewed well and am perfectly happy with it, like my Sunpac external flash. Thanks for the links, they are helping me make a choice, and I am thankful that you responded to my query.

Nikonian72 wrote:

About 2-years ago, I purchased from my local camer... (show quote)

Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

georgevedwards wrote:

Yes that Tokina looks good! I am seeing two versions, the newer one only slightly more expensive at "street prices", still under $500, yet the list price for the old one is almost double. Is the old one better? What is the difference?

Older 11-16 Tokina is no longer made-hence the outrageous price due to availability. I bought mine on ebay for $380.00, slightly used-almost new. Took it to Costa Rica a few weeks ago. I was very impressed. B and H was selling it for the longest time for 426.00 until they sold out. Now they only have the newer one and the newly released 11-20. The older one will only auto focus on nikon body that has built in focus motor. New model auto's on all models.

GeneC Loc: Rhode Island

I picked up a used Sigma last year and the IQ surprised me. It's really good.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

It is awesome, after I fine tuned it to my D7000.

georgevedwards wrote:

I have my eye on the Nikkor 10-24mm, but even refurbished it is $700. I see a Sigma 10-20mm for around $400 and a similar Tamron, anyone have any personal experience with the other brands and what are your preferences and comparisons? Dpreview seems to show the Tamron has the softer focus on the corners than the Sigma. I assume the Nikkor is better at the corners but does not have a review on Dpreview.

JFleming Loc: Belchertown, Ma

Elsiss wrote:

Older 11-16 Tokina is no longer made-hence the outrageous price due to availability. I bought mine on ebay for $380.00, slightly used-almost new. Took it to Costa Rica a few weeks ago. I was very impressed. B and H was selling it for the longest time for 426.00 until they sold out. Now they only have the newer one and the newly released 11-20. The older one will only auto focus on nikon body that has built in focus motor. New model auto's on all models.

Amazon still has them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007ORX8ME/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2/184-7959188-1831004?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=1R2N7B8EFCXNJC5CSPG9&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687742&pf_rd_i=B0014Z3XMC

Nikonista Loc: England

georgevedwards wrote:

I have my eye on the Nikkor 10-24mm, but even refurbished it is $700. I see a Sigma 10-20mm for around $400 and a similar Tamron, anyone have any personal experience with the other brands and what are your preferences and comparisons? Dpreview seems to show the Tamron has the softer focus on the corners than the Sigma. I assume the Nikkor is better at the corners but does not have a review on Dpreview.

The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens - beautifully made with a metal mount and a silky action. It is pin-sharp across the range with excellent contrast. Only downside is the enormous 82mm filter size, but I can live with that!

MtnMan Loc: ID

georgevedwards wrote:

...
Actually I was hoping to use the wide angle mainly so I could take paying jobs like house interiors for selling houses and indoor group photos where you can't stand back far enough to get everybody in the picture, which I have already done with an 18mm and it wasn't quite enough.

The ultrawide angle may not be what you want for that purpose. The Nikon 10-24, for example, has quite a bit of distortion at and near 10mm. I'd assume the others are the same in that range. You may want to spend your money on a good tripod and flash and work on making great panoramas. And you might consider bracketing or HDR to get images where you can match the exposure outside to inside.

In any case if you are using a flash there is no need for a fast lens. And generally I'd think you want good depth of field for interior shots. So again no need for a fast lens.