Nikon Wide Angle Lens

[KaleyEs]

I am interested in the 12-24mm nikkor lens but it is way out of my budget. I was looking into some alternatives and I know that Sigma and Tokina both have alternatives. I know neither of them will autofocus with my D40 but I plan on upgrading to a different body eventually anyway.

Any suggestions as to which wide angle is better quality or should I just save up for the 12-24mm?

 

[D-50]

I use the Sigma 10-20 and love it. It produces decent colors sometimes a bit saturated but overall its a nice lens. I have not used the Tokina

 

[ilockert]

If your going to upgrade bodies I would take the money from a wide lens and go a head bite the bullet upgrade bodies sell the D40 and put it towards the wide lens, Just my .02. As far as one that auto focus on a d40 im not sure.
I wish I could be of more help.

 

[Garbz]

Umm you don't need a silent wave motor in a lens to autofocus with the D40. Any motor will do, of which sigma and tamron nearly all have one.

For Sigma the 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 will autofocus no problem. Tamron lenses on the other hand do not as none of their Nikon mount lenses feature internal motors.

This is straight off each manufacturer's website.

 

[JIP]

If you think it is possible for you to afford eventually just save for the Nikon. If you don't have to why settle for inferior glass?. I know some people will bristle at this so I just want you to know I have no problrm with aftermarket lenses they are a perfectly acceptable alternative if you cannot afford a "real" lens. But if you can afford the Nikon it is always the best way to go.

 

[fmw]

If you think it is possible for you to afford eventually just save for the Nikon. If you don't have to why settle for inferior glass?. I know some people will bristle at this so I just want you to know I have no problrm with aftermarket lenses they are a perfectly acceptable alternative if you cannot afford a "real" lens. But if you can afford the Nikon it is always the best way to go.

I'm not sure where JIP gets the idea that something other than Nikon is inferior or that only Nikon is a "real lens" but it isn't a very well informed opinion. Actually, I own and use the Nikkor 12-24 and I consider it reasonably inferior as Nikkors go. I doubt the other brands are any worse.

 

[KaleyEs]

Thank you everyone for all of your input! I think I'm gonna go with the Sigma 10-20mm since it will autofocus with my camera and I don't have a grand to spend on a lens right now. So thanks guys!

 

[sabbath999]

I shot a couple shots shot with the Sigma 10-20mm in the Canon mount a couple months ago (a friend owns it), nice enough glass from what I could see of it.

Personally I would prefer to get the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX over the 10-20 since I try to avoid the "DX" type lenses whenever possible... assuming I was buying one of these two... because the 12-24mm can be used with a full frame sensor (D3, plus prolly a ton of new cameras in the future) which will also auto focus with your camera.

 

[Greatwhite]

I have the Tokina 12-24 f4...not very fast, but great lens, shows no probs @100%, even shooting in RAW.....

 

[Garbz]

If you think it is possible for you to afford eventually just save for the Nikon. If you don't have to why settle for inferior glass?. I know some people will bristle at this so I just want you to know I have no problrm with aftermarket lenses they are a perfectly acceptable alternative if you cannot afford a "real" lens. But if you can afford the Nikon it is always the best way to go.

No why would you want the "real" nikon lens when you can get "unreal" performance out of the Sigma. I'm also not sure where you base your blanket opinions from but the Sigma 10-20 (not quite sure on the number) was a most awesome lens. Some reviews say better than Nikon's own. Build quality is typical sigma and not up to scrap with the Nikon, but I'm sure this is the least concern when being bolted on anything other than a D200+.

I've certainly drooled over this lens the few times I've seen it.