Index
Introduction
This compares all known DX-format wide zooms as of 2006.
In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon 12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008, just get the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't autofocus on a Nikon D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive Nikons, get the most expensive Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for autofocus.
2008 also saw the introduction of the Tamron 10-24mm, which isn't very good.
NEW: Comparison chart of Digital Ultrawide Zooms 02 January 2009.
The rest follows from 2006.
Executive
Summary
As of 2008, the very best wide zoom lens for DX and Canon 1.6x formats is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon 12-24mm. The rest of this article and subsequent pages is from 2006.
All these work on all Nikon digital cameras, except only the Nikon and Sigma will work on the new Nikon D40, D40x or D60. The Tokina and Tamron are manual-focus-only on the D40 and D40x.
That's four
weeks of research condensed into one sentence. I
have 100 pages of details indexed here.
if this is your first visit, read to the bottom of each
page and click the NEXT links. In the future you can refer to the index.
I don't worry about lens cost, so I'd buy the Nikon again
today. If I was still a student I'd get the Tokina and never look back.
The
Nikon is easily the best lens if you split hairs and have a high
resolution camera like a D2X or D200. It had better be for twice
the price.
The optical
differences between the Nikon and the others are subtle. These differences
won't be seen by most people. You'll make
better pictures by spending the extra money on a photo trip instead
of the Nikon lens.
People read
me because I'm direct. The weird thing about this
review is the three other lenses can be pretty close. I would
get the Tokina myself. If you have a special
application the Tamron or Sigma might be a better choice than the
Tokina. Read on if you have a specific need for weight or angle of
view.
All
of these are fine. I doubt I could see any significant difference
in 12 x 18" (30 x 45 cm) prints from my D200. I only see differences
by blowing the files up to 100%, which is similar to a 3 foot
(1 meter) wide print on my monitor. If you're shooting a D50 or D70
I doubt there'd be much visible difference. Any
of these third party lenses will make far better images than dreaming
about a lens you can't afford yet.
|
Nikon (see
also my earlier stand-alone review here)
The Nikon
lens is the best and most expensive. None of the third party
lenses can outperform it. Drat; I was hoping to find a bargain.
This all goes to prove that Nikon, who has been making optics
continuously for almost 100 years, still knows a trick or two.
Nikon also makes $10,000 pairs of astronomical binoculars and
the extremely expensive (about $1,000,000) lenses used in manufacturing
the chips inside your computer. They don't squander their resources
making copy machines or printers.
The Nikon
has the best optics, the best focusing and the best everything.
What more can I say? If you have the money get the Nikon. It's
future proof because it's good enough for higher resolution
cameras than my D200.
The price
at Adorama is $920, or $100 less than I spent in 2004. This
is only a $400 - 450 premium over the others. if you'd rather
see that $400 difference in your wallet then the other three
lenses are fine. If you can afford it then go for the Nikon.
(click
to enlarge) |
|
Tokina
This
is the easy choice among third party lenses. It's the only
one that feels solid and professional. It has the fastest focus,
the fastest aperture and has the best handling of all third
party lenses. The Tokina is the heaviest lens of the four.
It has no weak points.
Get the
Tokina if cost is an issue. If I didn't already have the Nikon
and didn't have $1,000 then I'd buy this Tokina. The only way
you'll see any of the subtle optical superiority of the Nikon
is if you're one of those people who worry more about snapping
test charts than making great images.
I prefer
the Tokina because it's the only $500 lens that feels durable
and professional. It's also faster in f/stop and focusing than
any of the other third party lenses. The Tokina is the heaviest
and feels great. You get your money's worth. It feels like
a well made solid lens and it is. It works well and handles
well, too.
Warning: Forget it for the D40 and D40x, since AF won't work. It's manual-focus-only on those cameras.
(click
to enlarge) |
(click
to enlarge) |
Sigma
The Sigma
goes to 10 mm, the widest of all. It really goes to an honest
10 mm. When comparing lenses the difference is obvious. Unfortunately
the Sigma feels the cheapest (which it is), even though it's
the second heaviest. The Sigma's build materials and quality
do not build confidence. Like it's focal length, it also has
the shortest warranty. It's also the least sharp if you look
too closely. Here's my dilemma: the whole point of all these
lenses is to go wide. Sigma is clearly the winner for the widest
of the wide, however its optical and mechanical quality scare
me. If you treat your gear well
and are more concerned with impressive images than test charts
I'd suggest the Sigma.
I was
considering this Sigma to replace my Nikon because it goes
wider. It really does go wider and is a ton of fun.
Unfortunately
it feels cheap, even though it's reasonably heavy. It makes
funny noises when focusing, has crummy lens caps, a weird,
ugly painted finish and doesn't inspire my confidence. It's
warranty is only one-third as long as the next shortest warranty.
If Sigma isn't confident that it will last more than a year,
I'm not either.
The Sigma
is also the least sharp. You won't see this unless you
look hard. If you do then get the Nikon. If not,
the Sigma can make spectacular images, especially
at 10 mm. Because it's not as sharp at the sides my
D200 won't always focus properly with any other than the center
AF sensor.
This
Sigma holds the record for the widest angle lens for a digital
still camera. I don't trust it, so I hope Nikon will be introducing
a 9mm f/2.8 DX at PMA instead. |
|
Tamron (see
also my earlier stand-alone review here)
The Tamron
works well and goes a little wider than the Nikon or Tokina lenses.
It weighs less than any other, or only 2/3 the weight of the
Tokina. If I was a backpacker who cut the handles off his toothbrushes
worrying about weight I'd get the Tamron. The Tamron is light
and almost 100% plastic, but good plastic. It's focusing is
slow and noisy, not much of a problem with a wide lens.
The Tamron
costs 10% more than the other third-party lenses and has the
slowest f/stop and narrowest zoom range. Therefore I discounted
it as the worst choice before I tried it.
After
using it I realize that it has optics as good as any other
third party lens, not that you'll be likely to notice
for normal 12 x 18" (30 x 45 cm) prints.
It's
also the lightest by a large margin. It's made almost entirely
of plastic. Surprisingly it's made of very good plastic and
handles well except for slow focusing. This is the best choice
for minimum weight backpacking. It also goes wider than the
Nikon and Tamron, and even works as wide as 14 mm on a film
camera.
I suspect
you can get a lot of life out of it, so long as the AF gearing
doesn't gum up or wear out. This is an old-fashioned mechanical
(screw) focus lens. It has a six year warranty, so I wouldn't
worry.
Warning: Forget it for the D40 and D40x, since AF won't work. It's manual-focus-only on those cameras. |
What About
Canon?
I'd buy the Canon
10 - 22 mm lens in an instant if I had a Canon digital camera.
The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including
the Nikon.
What makes
the Canon so superior is its vanishing low distortion. What little
distortion the Canon has is completely fixable in PhotoShop CS2.
The Canon also has a wider zoom ratio than any of the Nikon, Tamron,
Sigma or Tokina lenses.
If you own
Canon and want the best just get the Canon lens. it's not much more
expensive than the Tamron, Tokina or Sigma lenses and costs less
than the Nikon.
See my full
review of the Canon 10 - 22 mm for
more information.
What
About the Sigma 12 - 24mm f/4.5 - 5.6?
This Sigma
is a huge, older lens intended for 35mm film cameras.
It's too darn
big and heavy for use with digital cameras. See my review of the Sigma
12 - 24m f/4.5 - 5.6 for
more. Any of the lenses reviewed here are better choices for
digital cameras.
NEXT: Introduction
and Explanations
Index |