I've tried to do a couple of searches here but it usually leads to someone posting a link from ken rockwell and then everyone going off on ken rockwell.

The 3 lenses I was looking it was the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (which seems to be in backorder everywhere) the sigma 10-22mm, and the nikon 12-24mm f/4.

The nikon is overpriced (I'm a longtime canon shooter switching over, and the 10-22mm was my bread and butter), but I've heard good things about the 11-16mm f/2.8, and it's affordable and its nice to have that extra stop of light when your at the widest range. I havn't read much about the sigma though.

What have people have the best experience with?

I've just got to Sigma 10-20 and so far it seems pretty decent. Nice Sigma EX build quality and nice and sharp. I also used to have the Sigma 12-24 and I really liked that too, but swapped for the 10-20 as it can take filters.

Personally I rarely shoot wider than f/8 on my wide angles so the f/2.8 of the Tokina doesn't appeal to me.

It may help to know what body you are using.

d300. It's the reason why im not considering the 14-24mm.

For the D300 I'd say its the Nikon 12-24.

You can get them used in absolute mint condition for $600 and on a DX body its absolutely amazing, especially the 18-24 range of it.

I have the Tokina 12-24 which I find to be a nice lens for the money. I know its not on your list but it works well.

There is a nice comparison of the WA zooms on the nikonians site that you might want to take a look at, especially if you plan to use the lens a lot. IIRC, it compares the sigma, nikon and tokina zooms. Sorry, I don't have a link.

I have and like the sigma 10-20, but I'm not much of a WA shooter.

Thom Hogan (www.bythom.com) recommends the sigma 10-20. And dont worry, people wont go crazy and attack his reviews.

I had the Tokina and it is spectacular, I only sold it because I went to full-frame:





I didn't really know what I was doing at all back then, not that I do now either.

if you ever plan to go full frame in the future, you may as well get the 14-24mm.. Used, they are going pretty cheap because many people bought it new, figured out that they never use it or its too big, and want to dump it

I see them on craigslist as low as $1100 or even less...

works great on crop sensor:

Examples w/D40:

Nice shots TWoK!

@ OP, remember when you need f/2.8, nothing else you're considering will get you there.

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/pho/984315425.html

this just came up on craigslist.

I have got both the tokina 12-24 and sigma 10-20, quite like the sigma if not for the irriating peeling of coating problems.

got the tamron 11-18 and 10-22 for canon as well. the 10-22 is probly still the best UWA cropped lens ever.

However most of my UWA shots are now done with 16-35L on 5D I/II

If I were shooting crop Canon, the 10-22 is best IMO, but only if you don't need the extra F-stops. If that were the case, the Tokina 11-16 would be my choice. I had the 11-16 Tokina for the first few months it was out and loved it. Sharp, accurate focus even in lower light and solid as a rock.

If I were shooting Nikon the 14-24 on FF and the Tokina 11-16 on a crop are the best options IMO.

Nothing Canon makes even approaches the 14-24. Nothing anyone makes for that matter.

ATL Jack wrote:
Thom Hogan (www.bythom.com) recommends the sigma 10-20. And dont worry, people wont go crazy and attack his reviews.




Thom's also gone back to using the Nikon 12-24...

Ths Sigma is pretty good, but the Nikon is better (I've owned both).

Best optical quality and resistance to flare (main difference) -> Nikkor 12-24
Normal UWA high quality at a reasonable price -> Tokina 12-24 (my personal choice)
Real UWA -> Sigma 10-20 (I have seen a LOT of very convincing pictures but the Sigma grey finishing is really not my favorite - peeling off and not scratch resistent)
Need for speed (2.8) -> Tokina 11-16
I don't know about the new Tamron, but some people seem to like it...

Guy

I've seen a lot of great stuff said about the Tokina 11-16, that it rivals the Nikon for overall sharpness. Seems like the problems I've seen mentioned about it had to do with the early Canon versions. Here's a good resource:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/

I love the Tokina 12-24, although its only 18mm FF equivalent, which is wide not ultra wide. The Sigma 10-20 is loved by many, but I just didn't like the look or feel of it, and I need 20-24 more than 10-12.

Ken Rockwell (go ahead and laugh) has an interesting comparison on 4 WA/UWA lenses. You can read it (with a grain of salt) here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

F MY LIFE, The 11-16 was in stock at bhphoto this morning. I had to go to work, I come back and its out of stock =(

It's ok. The world isn't over. Check craigslist and the B&S forum.

nooooooooooooooooooooo going to vietnam soon =(

I owned a Tokina 12-24 and sold it in favor of the Sigma 10-20 and never looked back.
The extra 2mm dont sound like much, but it makes a world of a difference in UWA terms.
I ran quite a few tests and sharpness-wise they are very similar.
Just wanted those extra 2mm, and am happy with it.
Whichever one you choose, you are not going to be unhappy with either, so go for it