I have the Tokina 11-16 and the Nikon 10-20. The Tokina has better optics and is much faster but's too heavy. I travel with the Nikon and use the Tokina locally for interiors, where the f2.8 matters. If I owned neither and could buy only one I'd buy the Nikon. Also the Tokina is good on a full frame camera only at 16mm, whereas the Nikon is good between 13 and 18mm.

The Sigma 10-20 is more than twice as heavy as this AF-P DX Nikon. Just get the Nikon. It's excellent.

Most of the answers in this thread are nonsense written by people who (A) haven't tried the 10-20 AF-P DX on a full frame Nikon and/or (B) have limited to no understanding of Nikon DX vs FX. I won't wast time refuting them except to say that the focal length of a lens is an intrinsic property of the lens which will produce the same image circle on any camera, and that auto DX recognition can be turned off on a D750. I have been using my 10-20mm AF-P DX lens on my D750 full frame, most recently on a trip to China. The 10-20 produces a larger image than one would expect from a DX lens, much larger than needed on a DX camera. Between 13 and 18mm there is very little vignetting and the lens is entirely usable on my D750. Below 13 and above 18 there's enough vignetting that correcting it might not be worthwhile; I haven't tried it. I also have a Tokina 11-16mm DX lens that is marginally useful on a full frame Nikon. That lens vignettes heavily below 16mm, making it in effect a wide angle prime on a full frame camera. The bottom line is that the 10-20 provides slightly wider coverage than Nikon's full frame 14-24 mm (13mm usefully), and does so at less than 1/4 the weight. The image quality won't be as good of course, but for casual shooting it's fine.

I agree with what the lab is telling you, with a few caveats. I make lots of 20 inch x 30 inch prints using Nikon cameras with 24 Mp sensors, both DX and FX, and good but not pro level lenses. I sharpen with the Topaz Detail 3 plug-in. My prints at this size are very sharp, meaning I have to stand closer than one foot away to see any lack of resolution whatsoever. Depending on the subject matter, I may need to use a magnifying glass to see lack of sharpness. I use a tripod for longer exposures only, not routinely. I only make prints when the file looks sharp at 100% on the monitor; most of my prints involve very little cropping. I do not re-size.

The question is, what would happen if I went to a substantially larger size and how large can I go? That's essentially your question too. I made a 20 x 60 inch print, meaning twice the magnification of a 20 x 30 one. Standing back a couple of feet it looks fine. From less than a foot away the lack of sharpness is very clear. I think that would be the case by 30 x 45 inches, maybe even by 24 x 36 inches, but I'm not sure. Others have told you here that people pay good money for prints like the one that doesn't look good to me from one foot away. That's a fact and I've seen many such prints in galleries, though not in high end galleries.

The lab is telling you, basically, that if you go to the next larger size you mention, the print won't look so good from close up. From my bit of experimentation i agree. That doesn't mean it wouldn't sell.

As far as going to a full frame camera, that only makes sense if it's a high Mp camera, such as 36 Mp, 42 Mp or more. A Nikon 24 Mp D750, which uses an "anti-aliasing" filter, if anything provides a bit less resolution than the sensor in the camera you have, although I can't see it in my 20 x 30 prints. I doubt that better Nikon lenses would help you at this print size. Almost all modern Nikon lenses are excellent even a "kit" 18-55mm. As far as tripod use, there are situations where it would help, and those where it would not. That's too complicated a subject to get into here.

So what should you do? I would ask the lab to make a one size bigger print of the one that looks best to you at the (approximately) 20 x 28 inch size that's your maximum now. If that doesn't look good enough TO YOU, you can try re-sizing software. But you might be able to sell prints like this anyway.

Quite true!

These were taken from the area around the WWII aircraft carrier Hornet. The Hornet is on the left in the first shot.

The LCD brightness can be adjusted from the menu, not the optical viewfinder.

This was Friday evening. From Alameda, Saturday's sunset wasn't as dramatic.

As I said, the image straight out of the camera closely matched what I saw. So no manipulation was necessary. I'm not reluctant to manipulate sunset colors, it just wasn't needed in this case.

These are very close to the colors I saw. No manipulation in PP.

Photographed from Crown Beach, Alameda.

There is an enormous difference in perceived noise at high ISO depending on the brightness or darkness of the scene, or in whether you are looking at the highlights or the shadows. A given ISO, aperture, and shutter speed may produce an image where noise in barely perceptible if the whole scene is on the bright side, whereas the shadows are horribly noisy. It's important to keep this in mind when shooting dark scenes or ones with a lot of shadow. That's when you need to do everything possible to bring the necessary ISO down.

The AF-P version for $149. is the DX, non VR model. If you are looking for a DX 70-300 the AF-P with VR is the one to get and you can get it gray market (for example from Walmart) for under $150. also. Or pay twice as much for a Nikon USA copy with full warranty. At the long end, it's 1 third of a stop slower than the FX versions at f6.3 instead of f5.6. It's a very, very good lens for the money and much sharper than the old FX 70-300 versions at the long end. Check compatibility carefully. For example, works fine with D7100, 7200, 7500, D500, not at all with D7000 and earlier.

If you want a 70-300 for FX the AF-P version of that lens is terrific, long end aperture if f5.6 and Nikon USA price $600. Much better built than the DX version, but not sharper at the long end. Also much heavier than the DX version. I would only buy it if you have a compatible FX camera such as D750 or D8XX. I own each of these 70-300 lenses and have tested and used them all.

Here are a few "postcard" type scenes from "Asia's World City." Got back recently from a trip there, also to Macau and Guangzhou in mainland China. Will get to those places later.

Hong Kong from Victoria Peak

(Download)

Hong Kong Garden

(Download)

Nan Lian Garden


Nan Lian Garden


Chi Lin Nunnery


Causeway Bay shopping district


Hong Kong Island skyline


Temple Street Night Market

A D500 is about a pound lighter than a D850 with grip. To some people this matters, to others not. It matters to me. If I buy a 46 Mp camera it will most likely be the Z7, not the D850.

Nikon's published MTF curves are strictly theoretical but show the new 500 f5.6 PF to be considerably sharper than the 200 - 500 at 500. You can find them on the Nikon website.