Mike D. Loc: Crowley County, CO.

Thanks for posting the pics, I like practical (in this case visual) examples. I believe that would work. :)

traderjohn Loc: New York City

If the 10-24 just as an example took a picture at it measured 10 inches in width. Then what would be the difference in using the inches argument be that of the 18?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You do not list your camera but I am guessing it is a cropped sensor hence the mention of the 18-55.
OK, your wide end on the 18 is an effective angle of 27mm on your camera vs. 15 mm on the 10-24. So, you are effectively wider by 12 mm and the 15 will get you a much wider view than the 27.
I personally own this lens and have owned it since it was introduced. I used to pair it with my 18-200 for trips abroad and the combo was very nice.
One thing to consider, since you mention architectural shots, you will get some convergence on the wide end of the 10-24. On some Nikon camera's Retouch menu they have a Distortion control and Perspective control that can help correct this. Nikon has also issued a firmware update that can help. You can also do it in post.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

Sorry but I’m not sure what you’re asking...

ELNikkor

I would think for those wanting to do APS-C Nikon DX, that a lightweight, inexpensive cover-it-all kit would be either the Nikon 10-20, 18-55, 70-300 AF-P, or the Nikon 10-20, Tamron 18-400...

poprock48

I have the Tamron 10-24 that I use in my D500. 3.5f wide open. No issues whatsoever and much $$ left in my wallet

aweisbach Loc: Omaha Nebraska

I have been using that lens almost daily, for shooting real estate, for several years, and highly recommend it. Yes, there's some barrel distortion, but it can be corrected fairly easily. The extra 4 mm on the long end, compared to the less expensive 10-20mn, helps with view type shots, usually allowing me to shoot the entire job with the one lens.

I previously used the Tamron version of that lens and had issues with lens flair. When I switched to the Nikor lens I was pleasantly surprised to find that not only did it handle flair better, but contrast and saturation are noticeably better as well.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

I used my 10-24 a lot until Fuji relegated my FF Nikon gear to a closet for the most part.

Cheers!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I do not have the Nikon product but have the Canon 10-18mm.
It is used quite a bit and very glad I have it.
Like you it is used a lot for architecture and in fact several shots I posted today are with it.
Well worth the the price and you should get.

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

I am in the same boat, I picked up an X-T3 and 3 lenses just to try it out, now it has grown to 11 lenses and I am looking for a second body. My FF Nikon gear is sitting and wondering what happened.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

At almost $900 the Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 is MASSIVELY over-priced (at $750, so is the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4).

Do yourself a favor and shop around. The Nikkor 10-24mm and 12-24mm are fine lenses... But not any better or more capable than a bunch of much less expensive lenses:

1. If your camera can work with AF-P lenses, the Nikkor 10-20mm is a much better deal at about $300. This lens is a bit plasticky, but very capable, smaller and lighter weight. It uses 72mm filters and even has VR, which the more expensive Nikkors both lack. The 10-20mm uses a variable aperture: f/4.5-5.6. That's usually not a problem for landscape and architecture, where we're usually stopping out lenses down to smaller apertures anyway. Be sure to check if your camera is compatible though... only more recent DSLRs can fully use AF-P lenses (there are compatibility charts on the Nikon websites, or at Nikonians.org, or at Ken Rockwell's site).

2. There's also the excellent, but much larger and heavier Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 for $470. This is the only f/2.8 ultrawide available. It uses more expensive 82mm filters.

3. Or the Tokina 12-28mm f/4 for $430. This is not as big and heavy as the Toki 11-20mm, but has a non-variable f/4 lens that's plenty fast for most purposes. It uses 77mm filters.

4. Or the Tamron 10-24mm VC for $500. This is a recent update version of Tamron's ultrawide, now with image stabilization added and other improvements. 77mm filters.

5. Or the Sigma 10-22mm f/3.5 for $400. This is also a rather large, heavy lens which uses 82mm filters. Sigma made another version with the same focal lengths but with a variable aperture that was much more compact. But that's been discontinued for a while and is only available used now.

6. You probably would find the Sigma 8-16mm ($700) - the widest of all besides fisheye lenses - to have too much wide angle distortion for architectural photography.

7. Don't spend the extra for the Sigma 12-24mm f/4 "Art" ($1600)... it's a full frame capable lens and will be largely wasted just using it on a DX camera. (Same with an earlier, somewhat cheaper version of it with a variable aperture).

The last two lenses also have convex front elements that makes difficult using filters on them, if that's something you want to be able to do.

I use Canon gear and have their excellent EF 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. I also have the older Tokina 12-24mm f/4, which is a very good lens... although the newer Tokina 12-28mm and 11-20mm mentioned above are both better.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

OP mentions using an 18-55mm lens now... which is only available in DX/crop sensor design.

Plus the Nikkor 10-24mm they're asking about is also a DX lens.

It's pretty safe to assume they have a crop-sensor camera.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I bought the 10-24mm three or four years ago for my D90 and now use it on both my D90 and D800. It is a great lens for travel. When I was on an Alaska cruise, 80% of my photos were shot with that lens. In Europe, it was indispensable. It is not only great for landscapes and exterior architecture, but also terrific for building interiors since you can stand in the corner of a room and capture the entire room in one shot. It is also great for shooting the interiors of the cavernous gothic churches we often tour when in Europe.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I have owned the 10-24 for a number of years. It takes great images but I rarely use it. One reason is that it does not have VR. I used it for landscapes and thus want f16 or higher and ISO 100. That often leads to slow shutter speeds and thus the need for a tripod.

If rebuying today I’d get the AF-P 10-20 VR. But you need to check if your camera works with AF-P lenses.

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000035705&configured=1&lang=en_GB&sfdcIFrameOrigin=null

Charlie C Loc: North Liberty, IA

I try not to go below 12mm with it due to too much distortion.