Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 UWA for my D7100. It has been a very nice lens. Very sharp and well built.

I like the push pull clutch system that Tokina uses for the switch quickly from manual focus to auto focus.

Most shots I get with my Tokina are at 11mm, but if I was buying today I would go with the newer 11-20 f/2.8 based on the longer (?) range and the shorter mimimum focus distance.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

When I think it's necessary, I carry a DSLR with a tele on my right shoulder and a W/A on the left side. I use the OPTECH double sling.

bcbearcatunting Loc: Davidson, NC

Not sure about your budget, but I started out with a Tokina 12-24 DX and have always found it to be a tough lens that does what you expect it to do. And, it's a whole lot less money to spend. A bit heavier than the newer lenses, a stop slower perhaps, but a nice focal range. Like it so much I got its FX parallel lens when I moved into full frame. Still use the 12-24 on my 7100.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I have the Tokina and love it. It amazed me the first time I used it. This is the only non-Nikon lens I own, but I am very happy with it.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

If you shoot landscape, I would suggest a 10-24mm. Both Nikon and Tamron make one. The Tamron is fine. If you just take a few wide angle shots I'd got with it. If you take quite a few I'd go with the Nikon. The reason that I'd recommend the 10-24mm over the 11-16mm is that my experience has been that I use those 20-24mm more than I do the wider millimeters when shooting landscape. So, don't shortchange yourself on focal length!!

ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

I have been testing the Tokina 11-16MM and read a ton about the 11-20MM as well. Also spoke to B&H. My read on it. Both are prone to lens flare, the 11-16MM more so. 11-16MM is sharper. I asked B&H which lens is returned more often and for what reason, that is the 11-20MM for sharpness issues. I find the 11-16MM to be well built, very sharp, great color. I am not sending it back, it's a keeper. There are some great articles and videos on the net about how to shoot with a super wide angle lens. I call it "twisted fun" at 11MM.

saside Loc: live in pueblo co

When a marine says "AF" is he talking about the air force? lol

fetzler Loc: North West PA

This focal length range is a lot of fun. There are a good few you tube videos that discuss this choice. Most like having 10mm lower limit and claim this appears much wider than 11 mm. Check the angular coverage. The edge softness and chromatic aberration varies between. It seems that the Nikon lens is the best here. I am considering trading my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 for the Nikon 10-24mm. The upper end of the zoom range is interesting as well a the lower. The 10- 24mm range would be excellent for landscape and architectural photography. Both ends would be very useful for these purposes.

jims203 Loc: Connecticut

I have the same two cameras as well as the Tokina. It takes great sharp pictures and completely captured the new World Trade tower and memorial waterfalls recently.
It is heavy and well built.

clickalot Loc: Chicago area

I have the Tokina lens and am very satisfied with it. In addition to using it on my D7000, it works great on my full frame D610 but only at 16mm; the other apertures start to show vignetting on a FF camera.

pbcbob Loc: Delray Beach, FL

I have had the Sigma 10-20 for Sony/Minolta for three years and have absolutely no complaints. It is the only 3rd party lens that I own.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If money is no object I would get the Tokina 14-20mm f2

If money does matter, I would get the Tokina 12-28mm f4 - 1/2 the price.

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

The one that is best is the Nikon 10-24 mm f3.5-4.5 G ED. Very good reviews. If not new you can get it mint off ebay for about the same price as the Sigma and Tokina. There is no comparison, trust me, the Nikon is a GREAT lens.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

DXO rates the Tokina a tad sharper then the Nikon and better overall 19 to 16. Personally I always look for the faster glass, f/2.8 thru out the range beats a variable aperture zoom in my mind.

BTW - The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 is rated at 17, slightly above the Nikon, and slightly lower than the Tokina.

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Both are decent lenses.

The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 has been superseded by a new model: 11-20mm f2.8 ($600).

The earlier 11-16mm is still widely available used and new. As a Nikon user you need to know that was made in two versions in the Nikon mount... The "II" version has a built in focusing motor ($450), the other version doesn't. I believe both of your cameras can focus either type, but some Nikon cameras cannot autofocus the motorless version. As a result, new or used the motorless version typically sells for less. The current 11-20mm is only made in one version, with a built in focusing motor.

There is also currently the Tokina 12-28mm f4 (one version, w/motor, $400), which superseded Tokina's 12-24/4 (both "II" motor and motorless versions in Nikon mount).

All those Tokina are quite nice lenses. The f4 lenses are a bit are less prone to flare, while the two earlier f2.8 are quite prone to it (I haven't tested it personally and don't know if the new 11-20mm this has been improved in this respect). I know some people who bought the 11-16/2.8 and have been quite happy with it... And others who couldn't tolerate the flare and returned it. Actually, most people don't need f2.8 in an ultrawide lens. Most people, most of the time are stopping ultrawides down for maximum depth of field, not using them wide open. A lot of people just think they need f2.8, but it actually it may be useful for some things, such as astrophotography or photojournalism.

All the Tokina use a 77mm filter, except for the 11-20mm which is a bit larger and uses 82mm. They all also use Tokina's typical "focus clutch" to switch from auto to manual focus. All Tokina rotate their focus and zoom rings the same direction as Nikkors (opposite Canon lenses and some others).

The Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 is one of the largest and heaviest of the ultrawides. It used to be one of the most expensive, too. But there are very hefty discounts on them now, which I would guess might means that Sigma has some new version of it coming and are clearing out existing stock. There also was a cheaper, smaller, lighter Sigma 10-20mm with variable aperture (f4.5-5.6?) that was discounted as well but now appears to be sold out. It is still widely available used though.

Sigma makes the widest of the wide with their 8-16mm ($700). Neat lens, but it has strong wide angle distortion effects and cannot be fitted with standard filters (due to a strongly protruding, convex front element).

There also is a Sigma 12-24mm lens (two versions)... but this is a full frame capable lens that's much, much more expensive. That would be sort of a waste of money, to buy for use on DX cameras. It has a lot of distortion and cannot use standard filters.

Finally, there also is a Tamron 10-24mm (variable aperture, $500) that might be worth consideration.

Of the bunch, personally I like the Tokina lenses the best. After comparing most of them I bought and used the Tokina 12-24mm f4. It gave a good combination of high image quality, very good build and reasonably quick/quiet autofocus... f4 was fine and it was reasonably priced. Although it's a very sharp lens, I avoided the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for it's tendency to flare.

The Sigma were well built, too and have very good HSM focus drive (which allows full time manual override, like Nikon Silent Wave and Canon USM)... but I didn't feel their image quality was as good as the Tokina and that the Toki's AF was more than adequate.

The Tamron was the most plasticky of the bunch. Although still pretty darned good in image quality and, at the time, had the widest range of focal lengths, I felt it left a little to be desired in terms of autofocus and image quality. Especially, it's a bit softer toward the 24mm end of the zoom range.

Relative prices are different now, but when I was shopping the Tamron was the cheapest, the Tokina 12-24mm and the variable aperture Sigma 10-20mm were all in the middle, and the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 were the most expensive of the third party lenses.

All the third party lenses are bargains compared to the Nikkor 10-24mm ($900 new) and Nikkor 12-24mm ($1100 new). I haven't used them personally, but all I've heard from users or read suggests that the Nikkors are no better than some of the third party lenses in terms of build and image quality.