Best wide angle lens for me?

[Ridgeback Guy]

Hi all, I'm a newb here, and need some help deciding on a wide angle lens.

I am going on a trip to next year that will be taking me to the Azores, Portugal, Spain, and England. I would like to buy a wide angle lens for the mountains, and coastlines, and possibly some architecture (not as important as the landscape photography). I've narrowed it down to a few, but really am not sure which lens would be best for what I want it to do. I would like to keep it in the $500-700 dollar range.

My camera is a Nikon d80

These are my choices in order. But am not really sure how much of a difference there will be between a 12-24mm, and a 10-20mm lens. What are your oppinions?

#1 - Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX..... 1st pic due to excellent reviews, and sub $500 price tag. I also like the fact that the lens remains a constant length during zooming, and has a focus clutch for easy transitions between MF and AF.

#2 - Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM - due to excelent reviews, and price. The HSM is also a plus, should I ever decide to sell the lens.

#3 - Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG..... 3rd choice because of the good reviews, but at the high end of my price range.

Should I be considering the tokina 11-16mm too?

Thanks in advance, John K

 

[Ridgeback Guy]

Anybody?

 

[Ridgeback Guy]

Also is there a significant difference in the sigma 10-20mm f3.5 vs the f4-5.6. Is the 3.5 worth the nearly $200 difference?

 

[dhilberg]

Personally, I'd get the excellent-but-nearly-impossible-to-find-in-stock Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. The Sigma 10-20 is also excellent. I've never used either, but people speak highly of them. Some people fret about the limited zoom range of the Tokina, but I'd probably be using it at 11mm most of the time anyway. Plus, I have the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM Macro, so 16mm isn't all that limiting.

I wouldn't get your first or third option.

 

[Ridgeback Guy]

Thanks, dhilberg, that was helpful. So I've narrowed it to the 10-20mm, or the 11-16. Now can anybody tell me if the 10-20mm F3.5 is worth $200 more than the 10-20mm F4-5.6?

 

[blash]

Thanks, dhilberg, that was helpful. So I've narrowed it to the 10-20mm, or the 11-16. Now can anybody tell me if the 10-20mm F3.5 is worth $200 more than the 10-20mm F4-5.6?

Dunno about the differences in optical quality between the two, but in terms of the aperture you also usually want a nice deep depth of field, which further increases the shutter time needed, so if you're shooting landscapes or architecture there's no real reason not to use a tripod and take your time. So maximum aperture would be irrelevant then.

Of course, if you would EVER use the lens hand-held, get the fastest lens you can afford :thumbsup:

 

[benhasajeep]

Thanks, dhilberg, that was helpful. So I've narrowed it to the 10-20mm, or the 11-16. Now can anybody tell me if the 10-20mm F3.5 is worth $200 more than the 10-20mm F4-5.6?

I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and it's a very good lens. Yes its limited in its zoom range. But it fits my lens range without over lap. Compared to my one Sigma lens its built like a tank. More on the feel of my Nikon f/2.8's.

I have not used the Sigma 10-20mm, and they do have a good following. But when I decided what to get, the speed of the Tokina won over. Now that Sigma has refreshed the 10-20. I am still a little on the fence as 2/3 of a stop is still a big deal to me. I would still probably go with the Tokina.

 

[JerryPH]

I've tried both the Tokina 11-16 and own the earlier gen Sigma 10-20. I prefer the Sigma. It seems to give me richer colours and at least a full 10mm of range. It is more useful than the Tokina's 5mm which I found pretty useless... lol For all intents 5mm is not a lot. I'd go for the Sigma, either the new or the old, I doubt you could do worse.

BTW, did you try doing a search? This is a topic that comes up at least 30 times a year.