I received my brand new 10-24 a week ago and I just love it ! I had, and still have, the 16-85 which works fine too for day-to-day photography, but that was not wide enough sometimes. The 10-24 may look a bit over priced but in my opinion you get plenty for your money in terms of performance and quality.

The first samples of all my Nikon lenses have been perfect. I rarely shoot faster than f5.6 and my experiences with the 10-24 have been superb, and the auto-focus is perfect. I got splendid results hand-held at Hearst Castle in dimly lit rooms on a D90. I do believe that other manufacturers make fine lenses, but most do not represent a genuine bargain to me. Almost all the reviews tend to compare third-party lenses to the comparable Nikon lenses and rarely is the Nikon lens less capable. I do understand I pay a premium price, but from the quality I've gotten a premium product. I have been very tempted by the 150/2.8 Sigma macro, but like all Sigma lenses there seems to be greater unit to unit variation. I think I'll wait for a revision of the Nikon 200/4 macro. I know I'll pay more, but then the resale is also higher if I change my mind.

yeah, but the 10-24 is SO SLOW on the long end, and on the wide end, notorious for lack of corner sharpness. . .and at $899, I'm all about being a fanboi, but there's a limit to absurdity when you have so many constant aperture lenses to choose from (which is important to me, I hate being "dictated" an aperture to):

1. Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 at $649.00
2. Tokina 12-24 f/4 at $499.00
3. Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 at $599.00

Yes, there are focusing issues and QC issues, I have already returned a couple of 11-16's (this will be my second or third?!), but I'm willing to do it to save anywhere from $300-1000. . .my landscape photography business isn't exactly "popping" now that anyone can really buy a dslr and frame a nice picture :-)

I love Nikon's 10-24. I tried the 12-24 in a camera store and the 12mm just didn't seem wide enough and zoom range felt limited. I extremely happy to have waited for the 10-24. The only lens I think better for ultra-wide is the 14-24/2.8 on an FX body.

I also love the 16-85 btw and find it excellent with the 10-24 and 70-300 VRII. 10mm to 300mm in three lenses, equivalent to 15-450 (or 300 with great quality) is extraordinary in three compact lenses. This is why DX works so well for me.

tokina should be shipping shortly, as an fyi. . .(mine was pre-ordered from JR). . .

Ultra-wide is actually rarely used for architectural photography unless you really want to exaggerate distortion they naturally produce, something usually not welcomed in architectural photography. Widest one commonly used on full frame is something about 24 (16 on DX) and even that one is more for interior shooting where you are limited in space, and preferred one is a PC model.
Ultra-wide is mostly landscape lens, and could be a great addition to 16-85, though greenlight probably made the best choice for a particular purpose.

Greenlight - The 16-85 would be a better choice for vacation photography. The only practical use for an ultra-wide like the 11-16 is for architectural photography.

The real fun of ultrawides come from messing with perspective. If you figure the "focal Length" of the human eye to be about 30-50mm. Tele-zooms squash everything together, but let you see far away things as though they were up close. Cool for far away stuff, but 'blah' for everything else.

In the standard zoom range, everything works about the way you see it.

But when you get to the ultra-wide realm, things start getting kind of cool. You can start to mess with reality. The difference between near and far gets exaggerated. Ultra-wides are more for doing cool artsy stuff. Not so much for snapping vacation shots.

O yeah, and do not try to put Circular Polarizer on it, it really does not look good on ultra wide lens.
High quality MC UV filter is what you really need.

You do not have to collect lenses like that (11-16, 16-85 …) it is actually useful if they overlap a bit (you do not have to switch them so often).
On the other hand Tokina is better built than Sigma, is faster and a bit sharper, and has lower return for repair rate, so if these two are your choice I would rather go for Tokina.

Re: 16-85
Great lens, but did you look at all into getting a used 18-70? Doesn't matter if you are shooting daylight, but the 18-70 is a bit faster...

-- Dave

Thanks for the advice, Gentoo, Adamz & Willis!

I've decided to wait off for the 11-16 Tokina or 10-20 Sigma. Last night I placed an order with B&H for the 16-85 Nikon after viewing and reading quite a bit. I'll eventually get down in the 10-11mm range as I'd like, but for now, I figured the medium range of the 16-85 will provide a better "all around" lens this summer than the 11-16. The wife and I will be traveling down to Ecuador for vacation and to see her family in June and I thought I could capture just a bit more range with the 16-85.

Cheers!

Here's a sample shot if your curious.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8980397@N05/3405670055/

I've got a Tokina 11-16 and love it.

The only disadvantages are that it won't autofocus on my D40 (not that big a deal with wide angle lenses. Focus is much more forgiveing). It will auto-focus on your D90 just fine if you don't mind a little noise. The other disadvantage is the fairly limited zoom range. My kit zoom starts at 18mm, and my other standby is the 24-70. I don't find myself missing the 16-18mm range, but when I go out with the 24-70, I've got a small gap in my zoom range. Usually I just need to back up a little to get it all in, but sometimes I can't.

Most of the shots I take with the 11-16 are at the wide end anyway, but if you want to use it normal wide zoom (as opposed to ultra-wide) then you might be better off with the more expensive and slower Nikon.

BTW - Don't waste your time with the 14-24 unless you are planning on going FX. It's just not very wide on a DX body (although the perspective will still be wide).

greenlight - as I'm not a fan of sigma, however I'll recommend You the current sigma 10-20, as I'm really surprised with the results - it's very sharp and produces well saturated colors with a relatively small distortions

Well I just ordered the 12-24 myself and a D90 to compliment my D300. Hopefully it will now get here as I had some major issues most of the week.

You may be able to get the 12-24, which is one of the best wide angel lenses anywhere for a good price on ebay. I've bought two other good lenses from there.

Of course, I've heard good things about the tokina and it's not too expensive either.

I have a D90 (in the mail) and I would like to take pictures of interesting architecture, landscapes, groups of people, cars, etc. I would like to venture off into the wide-angle zone with my D90 but I'm not too sure how long I should wait. So far as I know, there will be two new lenses coming out sometime in May. I would like to make a purchase ASAP, but I am willing to wait if the time waiting is for a great product. Has anyone here heard when the 2 below lenses will be hitting the stores other than the "sometime in the summer" or "May" forecasts that I've been reading about?

1.) Nikon's new 10-24 3.5-4.5 ($899)
2.) Sigma's new 10-20 3.5 ($ TBA)
or
3.) Tokina's 11-17 2.8 ($599-backorder-in $799 in stock)

I've been quite impressed with the pictures & reviews of the Tonika lens, but do you think it will offer better IQ and speed advantage to compensate for the minimal range? The inflated price of the Tokina is quite ridiculous right now, and I bet the retailers are just exploiting the limited inventory numbers until the May orders are delivered.

I'm interested in spending $$$.$$ for quality, but unfortunately, I cannot now afford > $ 1,000 for a Nikon 17-35 2.8 or 14-24.

This type of question seems to be common on the internet photography/lens forums, but I'd like to thank you all in advance for your input.

greenlight

FWIW, I bought the D90 body w/o the kit lens and I have a 35mm 1.8 on backorder right now, hence, when the mail man comes tomorrow and drops of the new SLR, I'm going to have to take pretend pictures till I can get this lens predicament figured out. :-(