Thread: Looking for an UWA lense.

I am very impressed with my Tokina 12-24 f/4

Originally Posted by TimNZ

Whilst the Sigma has a wider angle, gets the same level in reviews, and will autofocus on my camera, I am worried about the exposed bulb of the lense that I can't protect with a filter.,

I've got a 16mm fish-eye that I've had since 1989. It won't take a filter and it's still fine. The secret is to be religious about putting the lens cap back on as soon as you've finished shooting.

Not wanting to stray off topic, but do sigma lenses work on a Nikon camera? If so, wahoo. I have two kit lenses on my now obsolete film SLR that will help me get started on new Nikon.

most reviews seem to say

Manual focusing is well-damped and fairly smooth, though with only a very short throw of just under a quarter turn from infinity to the minimum focus distance of about a foot

i tried to manual focus mine last night and i had no trouble, tho like he says there is only about 1/4 turn on it.

i was considering the sigma as well but many reviews i read said it was not in the same league as the tokina below 14mm if i remember correctly.

Originally Posted by kenleyfred

Not wanting to stray off topic, but do sigma lenses work on a Nikon camera? If so, wahoo. I have two kit lenses on my now obsolete film SLR that will help me get started on new Nikon.

if it was a nikon slr the lens should mount and at worst manually focus.

usability will vary with the lens themselves and the camera body you are getting

90% of my landscaping images are using manual focus for 2 reasons, one because generally there is not enough natural light and second because I use hyperfocal distance technique.

Have you looked at the Sigma 10-20 (I think) this is well regarded. Also there is the Nikkor 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye.

24-70 isn't wide on a DX body. This is my most used lens though. The 14-24 is the to look at and it is about the same price.

I had the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 for 2 years and loved it.