Has anyone used this lens? I think it is still pretty new since it doesn't have many reviews or information about it yet. What do you think of it? Nikon | 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens | 2181 Would this be a good way to combine the 12-24 and 10-20 that I am considering? Or would I be better off going with the Nikon 12-24 or Sigma 10-20? Thanks
I would go witht he Nikon 12-24 f/2.8... or if you don't want to pay the price for the Nikon 12-24.. i would suggest the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC HSM constant aperture lens.
If there was such a thing as a Nikon 12-24 f/2.8, believe me I would. :mrgreen: How are the optics and build quality of the newer Sigma 10-20? Most of the reviews I have read so far say it's not any better than the cheaper model, which is pretty slow and isn't as sharp as a Nikkor lens.
OOPSIES... i meant nikon 14-24.. I haven't tried the 12-24 yet. I've read some reviews and they have said it is much faster on the AF. Optics and build are about the same as the older model, but the front element now has an 82mm thread size with the old one being 77.
I figured that's what you meant. That lens won't be wide enough for me on a D300 (DX format) to spend that much money.
True. If it were me, I'd find a camera store and see if they have any of those lenses to test out. The 10-24 recently just came out did it not?
Yeah. I tested it today with the Tokina 12-24 and Tamron 10-24, which both were not very good. I just didn't like how they felt, and the Tamron is known to be pretty terrible. The only lenses I haven't compared it to is the 12-24 Nikon and the 10-20 Sigma.
I will (very likely) never by a varible apeture zoom again. The photozone.de review was pretty good, but still.... variable. Taken with with the Nikkor 12-24 and D300. I'm just saying.........
If the options were strictly between the Nikon 10-24 and the Nikon 12-24, would the choice still be the 12-24 or does anyone see the 10-24 as being better?
