This is probably a stupid question--- Wide Angle Lens - Nikon Vs. Sigma

[Trblmkr]

So I've been looking around and reading reviews on the two following lenses.

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX
Vs.
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD


I'm looking at this for Landscape and Architecture photography on my D7100, and wondering if anybody has used both of these and what was the determining factor?
Now before you say it.. price is not an issue right now as the Nikon is listed for $659 and the Sigma is $649 on Amazon.

So this really is about quality, the Variable f-stop on the Nikon an issue, any distortion on the edges for either ?

Love to hear this groups opinion..

 

[table1349]

FM Reviews - Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX -Nikkor
FM Reviews - Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

 

[D-B-J]

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is an absolutely amazing lens. Buy it. Now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manaheim]

I fixed your subject. It was bothering me.

I have an older version of the Sigma and have been happy with it. It has no more flaws than I'd expect for such a wide angle lens.

When Nikon first introduced their competitor to it, I seem to recall my opinion was "Ok, better, but not better enough to be worth the $". Sounds like it's cheaper now, but the constant aperture 3.5 on the Sigma is pretty compelling. The variable aperture is one of the main things about the Sigma that drove me nuts.

I would check the various lens test reviews and go with whichever looked generally better, with the constant aperture being a tie breaker.