ronichas Loc: Long Island

You might also consider the Rokinon lenses. A guy from B & H suggested it to me. I got a 14 mm Rokinon for my full frame Nikon. It is a manual lense but I love it. Took it to Africa, used it for photographing the milky way.
Best thing is it was about $300.
i just ordered the Rokinon 8 mm fisheye for my Sony mirrorless.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Bite the bullet. My wife bought me the Tamron 10-24mm for my D7100 because it was less expensive. While it is an okay lens, it gets a slight fisheye at 10mm where the Nikon does not. The Nikon supposedly (and seemed to be the case when I was comparing to the Tamron when she bought it) has better glass and imaging in general. Was it worth the extra money? I think so but she doesn't. However, I'm the one sitting at Lightroom trying to either adjust out the fisheye on the Tamron or I'm the one that remembers to NOT shoot the Tamron at 10mm. 11 or 12mm is fine just don't go to the 10mm stop. Also, I think the Nikon was a little faster focusing (both have the built-in focus motor) And the Tamron has a 6 year warranty instead of the 5 year Nikon. (or did when I got mine). I don't know what other lenses are out there in that length but I think the Nikon was probably worth the little extra.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I really like the range, speed and build of the Tokina 12-28mm f4.....

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Definitely! Ebay and KEH are two good ways to pay less for the same quality.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I don't we can find many bad UWA lenses. Some better than others and a few bad copies. Bought a Korean (Samyang, Rokinon, Vivitar) in a group of stuff. I shoot Canon and it was a crop 8mm/f3.5. It was rather fun. I ran into a guy that really thought it was great and paid such. I bought a 10-22 EFs used. Lots of people buy UWA but not many learn to shoot creatively with that glass.

My point make a shop list and hit the used market. Look to but a wholesale price so you can shoot with it and then recoup if you don't like the style, the glass or other things.

J. R,

Spencehg

Another vote for the Sigma 10-20. I use it on D3000s, D5200 and D7100. It is used for detailed archaeological documentation in limited spaces to get coverage and it works great, sharp, minimal distortion for the application.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I have had great results with a Tokina 11-16,f2.8 on a D300.

Mundj Loc: Richmond TX

I have had good luck with my Tamron 10-24mm on my Pentax. It is currently selling for around $500 and has a great warranty.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I bought a used one on UHH for $600 a few years ago. It was in brand new condition and works fine.

But I shoot mostly landscape and prefer to use f18 and ISO 100. That often yields low shutter speeds so you need to use a tripod for sharp images because the 10-24 does not have VR. Using a tripod often isn't possible in the places I shoot from.

Thus I'd look for one with VR. The Tokina gets great reviews but I'm not sure it has VR (whatever they call it). I'd also look for a Sigma in that range. I got the Sigma 17-50 for my D5300 and love it. The OS is very good.

I mostly now use the 16-35 on my D800 for landscape. It has VR. But it is an FX lens. It weighs and costs neatly twice the 10-24 and doesn't give the angle you want for a DX.

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

Rokinon lenses are excellent and very affordable. They are manual but I don't mind that. They have several in the wide angle version.

daddybear Loc: Brunswick, NY

I also, Tokina 11-16 ,great lens. Just a fun lens to work with.

DeanR

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

Can't do any better than that for advice.

bwilliams

Another vote for the Sigma 10-20 f 4-5.6 on my D7000

BobbyT Loc: Southern California

I have the 12-24 mm Nikkor refurbished lens which is less expensive. At 10mm, the lens did not get good reviews. Look to buy a refurbished lens from Nikon, Adorama or B&H.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Sam,

You are in luck... No need to bite any bullets. There are a number of excellent alternatives that cost a lot less than either the Nikkor 10-24mm or 12-24mm, both of which are among the most expensive ultrawide DX lenses from anyone. The 10-24mm is selling for just under $900 US right now (the Tamron below is roughly equal quality, nearly half the price)... The Nikkor 12-24mm is a bit more robust lens and is on sale right now, selling for $950 (usually about $1150... there was a Tokina model of roughly equal quality for less than half the usual price of the Nikkor).

- Tokina AT-X 12-28mm f4 DX... is one of few that have a non-variable aperture, also is high quality construction with very good image quality. $450.

- Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f2.8 DX... the only f2.8 and a non-variable aperture... also very high quality images and built... it's a bit larger and heavier though, 82mm filters. $550. (Note: Previous model 11-16mm f2.8 DX II with focus motor is discontinued but still available for $479, it's very sharp but has a narrow range of focal lengths and is a bit prone to flare.)

- Tokina AT-X 14-20mm f2.0 DX... a relatively new model that just barely gets to ultrawide with 14mm, but is the only f2.0 lens in the bunch. This makes it rather large and heavy... and pricey at $850.

- Sigma 10-22mm HSM DC.... there are two versions: a smaller and cheaper one with variable aperture and a bigger, heavier, and usually more expensive one with f3.5 aperture. The first is hard to find right not for some reason.... while the latter is currently on sale, $200 off making it $450.

Unfortunately, for some reason this cheaper version with variable aperture is hard to find in Nikon mount right now. It's been on sale too, maybe has completely sold out? The Canon version is available and selling for $300 ($50 off usual price). That price makes it relatively competitive with an ultrawide Canon recently introduced that cost less than any of them, but of course won't work on a Nikon camera.

- Sigma 8-16mm HSM DC... this is the widest of the ultrawides, short of a fisheye. It does have fairly strong wide angle distortion effects, though.... and at $700 it ain't cheap.

- Sigma 12-24mm HSM DG... is actually a full frame capable lens, one of the widest available and with fairly strong distortions, but pricey at $950 and would be rather a waste just to use on a crop camera.

- Tamron 10-24mm Di II.... is one of the most affordable models, a bit more plasticky than some of the others and a little less sharp at 24mm. $500 US.

Until recently there also was a Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f4.... the II version has focus motor for Nikon and was a good price for a good lens, you might find it still selling new somewhere. If you do, I think you'll find it's a well built and good performing lens as the Nikkor 12-24mm that costs nearly 3X as much. I've used this lens extensively on my Canon cameras for some years and it's quite good, very well built like the other three Tokina mentioned above. (Note: There were also Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and 12-24mm f4 lenses without built-in motor in the Nikon version, that sold for less money. Because your D7000-series camera has a focus drive motor, these lenses will autofocus on it. They cannot autofocus on the D3000- and D5000-series cameras, or on earlier Nikon camera models lacking the focus drive motor.)

Regarding focus speed... you don't need to worry. Simply put, ultrawide lenses only need to move their focus group a very short physical distance to go from infinity to closest focus. Most are quite quick... even when using less sophisticated focusing drive systems. For example, I use a micro motor Tokina and find it focuses near instantaneously on my Canon cameras. In fact, there is no perceptible difference in focus speed, comparing it to a Canon USM drive (ultrasonic) ultrawide I also use... which is among the fastest AF drive types by any manufacturer. The micro motor Tokina makes a little noise when it focuses, but only noticeable in very quiet conditions. (Note: auto focus speed is much more of a concern with standard and telephoto focal lenses.)

10mm? 11mm? 12mm? Well, 11mm is about one step backward from 10mm, while 12mm is about 2 steps. The 14mm mentioned is a more significant difference.

Folks tend to jump on the big aperture lenses.... think they need them. But, to be honest, most actually don't on an ultrawide. For many purposes, you'll be stopping this type lens down quite a bit, not using it wide open. Short focal lengths are relatively easily handheld at slower shutter speeds... plus many purposes for these types of lenses are done using a tripod. And, except when used very close-up, even with f2.8 these lenses don't render much background blur. The larger aperture lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive... often needing a bigger, more expensive filter and often not as sharp as the less extreme. Yes, there are some that need "fast" lenses: they might be wanted for photojournalism and astrophotography, for example. But the majority of users really don't need them.

Variable apertures also might be no problem for most users. They can be a bit of a pain for someone using manual lighting such studio strobes, though... or for anyone who regularly uses a separate, handheld light meter. Those folks might prefer one of the non-variable designs. But others who utilize their camera's through-the-lens metering systems and auto exposure modes a lot have little or not problem with the variable aperture lenses.

And, you'll notice there are no prime lenses... just zooms. There simply aren't many truly wide primes made for DX/APS-C cameras. Rokinon/Samyang make one or two that are manual focus only. There's a Nikkor 14mm FX, but that's extremely expensive. And there's a Zeiss 15mm, also expensive and manual focus only.

Finally, none of these lenses have any form of image stabilization. While nice on any lens, it's less necessary on ultrawides which are relatively easily handheld (unlike telephotos). Right now only Canon is offering a crop-only ultrawide with stabilization. Of course that lens won't work on your Nikon.