| SUMMARY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It
should be apparent by this time that all four lenses produce images
that are very satisfactory. Each of us felt we could use any one
of these lenses on a shoot and come away pleased with the results.
Interestingly, the three reviewers who participated in this test
own three of the four lenses, and we would each make the same
choice again. That’s because individual preferences can be just
as important as absolute performance.
-
|
|
The
Nikkor, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron super-wide angles compared
|
In
addition, no one lens clearly dominated every review category.
In cases such as weight, what is best is debatable. Is low weight
better than a more hefty construction? The answer depends on the
photographer. The same is true with the focal length range. If
you have a 17-55mm, a 10-20mm may make the most sense. If you
own a 28-70mm, a 12-24mm may be your preferred option.
-
| Lens |
Maximum
Aperture |
Focus
mechanism |
Lens
formula (elements/groups |
Dimensions
L X W mm |
Weight
g/oz |
|
| 12-24mm
DX Nikkor |
f/4 |
Internal
AF-S |
11
/ 7 |
88.9
X 81.3 |
485/17.1 |
$940 |
| 12-24mm
AT-X Pro Tokina |
f/4 |
Screw-drive |
13
/ 11 |
89.5
x 84 |
570/20.1 |
$480 |
| 11-18mm
SP Di II Tamron |
f/4.5-5.6 |
Screw-drive |
15
/ 12 |
83.2
X 78.2 |
355/12.5 |
$570 |
| 10-20mm
EX Sigma |
f/4-5.6 |
Internal
HSM |
14
/ 10 |
83.5
X 81 |
470/16.6 |
$500 |
To
help with your decision, here are some of the more common considerations
as well as our thoughts on how specific lenses tested:
-
| 12-24mm
DX Nikkor |
Best
Optical
Performance |
|
Lowest
overall
distortion |
Best
Build
Construction |
|
Best
Low-light
Performance |
| 12-24mm
AT-X Pro Tokina |
|
|
|
Best
Build
Construction |
|
Best
Low-light
Performance |
| 11-18mm
SP Di II Tamron |
|
|
|
|
Most
portable
lens |
|
| 10-20mm
EX Sigma |
|
Lowest
chromatic
aberration |
|
Best
Build
Construction |
|
|
In
addition:
•
Best complement to a 17-55mm: Sigma 10-20mm or Tamron 11-19mm
•
Best complement to a 28-70mm: Nikkor 12-24mm or Tokina 12-24mm
•
Best “bang for the buck”: Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 12-24mm
We’ll
let you do your own trade offs and determine your own personal
“winner” based on your own unique criteria. We may know the factors,
but only you can give each its relative weight.
So
how did the Nikkor fare overall against its competition? It did
quite well, although it faces competition, especially given the
price difference. Many photographers will probably conclude that
the relatively small difference in overall optical quality doesn’t
warrant the higher price; others will be adamant about that quality
difference. This pattern holds with most other lenses as well
– a relatively small improvement in sharpness is usually costly.
You need to decide how important it is to you. If you’re consistently
stopping down to f/8 or f/11, many of the optical differences
disappear.
As
mentioned earlier, we tested on both a D2X and a D70 body. We’ve
read some discussions that imply that the lower resolution of
a 6.1MP DSLR will mask any differences in optical performance.
We did not find that to be true. While the D2X can make maximum
use of fine optical quality, we saw consistent results in relative
optical performance with both DSLR bodies. A lens that looked
best on the D2X at a given aperture and focal length also looked
best on the D70. The subtleties in optical performance were also
clear with both cameras.
The
real winner of this shoot-out is the photographer. The market
has diversified, and there now are a number of viable choices
in the ultra-wide DX zoom range. There is now a lens to match
most digital SLR photographers’ needs and budgets, and that will
increase the number of happy Nikonians. |
