Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I have the Tokina 11-16. It's a solid lens and the sharpest super wide I have ever used. I like the IDEA of going with Nikon for a Nikon camera. But for the most part good Nikon lenses are obscenely expensive. Check with Ken Rockwell reviews. The Tokina is the sharpest of the genre and built like a tank.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If money isn't a concern, I recommend choice b).

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I have the Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 PRO DX. Great lens and love that f/2.8!

ecurb1105

When I used DX gear (D90), I bought a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and was quite happy with it shooting the built environment. I gave the camera and lens to my son when he became a Fire Investigator for his department.

BebuLamar

Why would you give your camera a gift for your birthday?

EastWest

I have used a borrowed 10-24 f3.5 Nikkor on my d3300 with very good results but I later bought a 16-80 f2.8-4 VR and I love it! Way more versatile than changing lenses and super sharp at every focal length. LR corrects the minor barrel effect at the wide end with a profile correction.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Happy Birthday! Not familiar with Nikon lenses but I like your attitude! I can't remember my camera's birthday or even my own at times. Because of that I try to give myself several presents a year just to make sure I got it covered.
Happy shooting and many more birthdays both for you and your camera!

bellgamin Loc: Ewa Beach, Hawaii

Giving a gift to myself would be selfish. Giving a gift to my camera is an act of charity, possibly tax deductible.

@all -- I am reading all your comments diligently. Please keep them coming.
=>Per comments thus far, I have eliminated the Sigma from consideration.
=>Also, the Nikon 10-24mm is the priciest of the lot. I wonder if it wouldn't be wasted on a novice hobbyist like me?
=>On the other hand, the Nikon 10-20 seems rather low-priced for a Nikon lens. I wonder why?

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I can’t say which is best for you, but I own lens F and love it.

rangel28

The 10mm-20 AF-P is small, light, and made entirely of plastic. It's not weatherproofed (against water) and it just comes with a cheap plastic end cap But it produces pretty good results, especially for the price. Here is Thom Hogan's review. http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-dx-lens-reviews/nikon-10-20mm-f45-56g-af-p.html

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

a) Nikon AF-P DX 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G...

Small, light, inexpensive. Somewhat plasicky and AF-P lenses aren't compatible with all Nikon cameras, but are fine with a D3500. Surprisingly good image quality. Slow f/4.5-5.6 aperture. But it has VR (image stabilization). Get this lens and go have fun using it!

b) Nikon AF-S DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G

A good lens, but ridiculously expensive and not really any better than some much less expensive options.

c) Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD

Not very familiar with it other than on paper. The earlier version (without VC image stabilization) image quality didn't impress me very much.

d) Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM AF

The widest non-fisheye lens available. Heavy wide angle distortions. Protruding front element makes it impossible to fit standard filters. Pretty expensive, but it goes wider than any other lens, aside from a fisheye.

e) Tokina AT-X PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8

Yeah, it's pretty sharp. But the Nikon AF-P 10-20mm is just as sharp. This Tokina was the sharpest ultrawide in it's day, but that was a few years ago. And, unfortunately, it's also very prone to flare issues. The first version in Nikon F-mount is motorless, so would not be able to autofocus on D3500... but this II is fine in that respect. Quite well made, but uses Tokina's somewhat odd "focus clutch" mechanism to shift from manual focus to auto focus. Fairly large and heavy, super narrow range of focal lengths.. those are the trade-offs to get f/2.8! (See below.)

f) Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 PRO DX

Updated version of "e)", has largely solved the flare and limited focal length range issues. Also only one version, which has a built-in focusing motor so is able to AF on all Nikon cameras. But now it's bigger and heavier... 82mm filters (all the others above use 77mm, except the 8-16mm which can't use standard filters and the Nikkor AF-P 10-20mm which uses 67mm).

Do you really "need" f/2.8 on an ultrawide? If you're shooting landscapes and architecture and other sedentary subjects, very probably not. In fact, you will very likely typically be stopping down to a middle or smaller aperture for greater depth of field, not using f/2.8 much or at all. If you are out shooting astrophotography or aurora borealis at night, the f/2.8 might make for a helpfully brighter viewfinder. Sports shooters and photojournalists also may need f/2.8. But landscape shooters probably don't. For a lens to have a larger aperture means other limitations... larger size and greater weight, less focal length range in a zoom, higher price. And often there's some compromise in image quality, especially at the largest apertures.... Possibly less sharpness in the corners and edges of images and/or more chromatic aberration. It's not uncommon for "slower" ultrawide lenses to be better corrected and sharper from corner to corner. Do a lot of careful study and comparison... and ask yourself if you really "need" f/2.8 for what you'll be shooting (a tripod may be a better choice)!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Any excuse will do!

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

hi bellgamin, I have the D3300 and the Tokina 11-20 combo. the Nikon 10-24 is about $900/ the 10-20 is about $300 and a "kit" lens. so what. but the Tokina 11-20 is about $600. I like the 2.8 also, and at the time I heard or read I believe on here (UHH), that the Tokina was a little better than the Nikons. except for the Tokina I have Nikon lenses for those that say to stay with N brand.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

I have the Nikon 10-24 and love it. I probably do not use it enough to justify the expenditure, but, hey, you only live once.