Nikon, Sigma, Tamron auto focus zooms - ultra-wide
Sigma HSM 10-20 4.0-5.6 (DX)
The main reason to consider this lens is the extra 2mm gained at the wide end of the zoom range compared to the competition. For a wide angle the amount of CA is really low, distortion is moderate, too. The quiet HSM focussing motor is really nice to have and the built quality is good. The lens suffers from light falloff towards the corners but is really sharp throughout it´s range. Reports on the internet indicate that this lens suffers from sample variation, so it is better to buy it new from a store with a good return policy. Especially look for one-sided softness.
Samples (DX): 10mm f8 20mm f10
Sigma HSM 12-24 4.5-5.6
The first and (to this date) only zoom that offers a field of view of 122 degrees at 12mm on film or FX.
Sharpness wide open is not very impressive, improves at f/5,6 at 12mm to reach a good level in the center of the frame with moderate performance at the sides. From f/8 and below the lens is sharp from corner to corner at it's widest setting. With focal lengths beyond 20mm you have to stop down to f/11. Please keep in mind that this lens has a very pronounced field curvature which gets worse towards the 24mm end. It is best to focus manually to infinity, using he advantage of the huge depth of field.
Distortion is no problem with this lens at all, all lines remain straight even at the 12mm setting which is very surprising for this type of lens. People who shoot interiors will surely appreciate this.
Flare can be a problem due to the very bulbous front element. CA is more easily detected than with the 10-20mm but it is still on an acceptable level for an ultra-wideangle zoom. Backlit objects sometimes loose contrast and sharpness.
The 12-24mm has more contrast than the 10-20mm leading to pictures with more pleasant rendition.
If you plan to get a full frame (FX) camera in the future this lens is your only option if you want to go below 14mm with a zoom. If you can live with the need to stop this lens down into the f/8 to f/11 range it does a very good job on DX.
| Sigma 10-20mm 4,0-5,6 HSM DX | Sigma 12-24mm 4,5-5,6 HSM Full Frame | |
| Weight | 470g | 615g |
| Size | length: 81mm, 83,5mm diameter. | length: 100mm incl. non-removeable hood, 87mm diameter. |
| Filter | 77mm | rear mounted gel filter |
| Colors | neutral | warm with slight yellow cast |
| Contrast | average | good |
| Field curvature | moderate | severe |
| Sharpness at 12mm f/4,5 | center good, edges fair | fair |
| Sharpness at 12mm f/5,6 | good | center good, edges fair |
| Sharpness at 12mm f/8 | very good across the frame | very good across the frame |
| Sharpness at 20mm f/5,6 | good across the frame | bad |
| Sharpness at 20mm f/8 | very good across the frame | good across the frame |
| Sharpness at 20mm f/11 | very good across the frame | very good across the frame |
Samples (DX): 12mm f10 15mm f8
Nikon AF-S 14-24mm 2,8
A bulky lens with a weight of 1000g, equipped with a front lens like a fishbowl which makes it impossible to mount filters. Does not sound attractive on first sight but all the shortcomings in handling are worth it. The lens designers at Nikon did not cut corners to achieve optical quality far beyond current lens designs. The lens is sharp from corner to corner even wide open at any focal length setting. And remember - we are talking about a super-wide lens here! Color and contrast are as good as it can get, compared to other lenses the 14-24 renders pictures a bit brighter. On DX format the lens is not used to its full potential but it still makes sense to use this lens instead of the wider 12-24mm lens offerings for DX just because the optical quality is so good and the ability to shoot at f/2,8 in dim places opens a new world of possibilities.
With the bulbous front lens flare becomes a natural problem that plagues all superwide lenses. Even when the sun is not in the frame small spots of flare can appear in the picture. Fortunately the flare spots are quite small. Don't believe the the hype on the net that this lens has almost no flare because of the new nano-coating. This lens flares like any other wide angle (a bit less) but the flare spots are unusually small which then may be related to the new coating. I have tried a few wide angle zooms and this one is by far the best of the bunch.
Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0
This full frame capable lens is already discontinued by Tamron. A decision which might have been a bit early, given the new trend to FX cameras. Built quality is like every other Tamron: all plastic, reasonably sturdy while still being light enough to be carried everywhere.
On the D200 the lens delivers a good optical performance with a few quircks in handling. At the wide end the wide open performance is already quite excellent, at least in the center portion of the frame. At the 35mm end wide open performance drops a bit and stopping down is recommended. Field curvature is a problem with this lens. It becomes apparent at the wide end leading to unsharp corners up to f/5,6 if the lens is not focused properly to infinity. In order to avoid the problem either zoom in to 35mm, focus on a far away object and zoom back out or focus manually right away. The focus pane will be further back and the corners will be sharper. For good corner performance on DX stop down to at least f/5,6 across all focal lengths. Overall color and tonality is quite pleasant and leaning to a warmer tone without having a disturbing color cast. On the Nikon 12MP FX sensor vignetting is visible at the wide end. At 17mm it is easily detected up to f/5,6. The situation eases with increasing focal length and is not a problem any more from 24mm and up. At the wide end smeared corners are problematic up to f/5,6 and for good results you have to stop down to f/11 at 17mm. However, even at f11 corners can get a bit smeary at the extremes, depending on the shooting situation. As expected corners get better as the focal lengths increases. Already at 20mm the corner situation improves pretty much.
Samples (FX): 17mm f11 17mm f11 22mm f11 35mm f11
Nikon 18-35mm IF-ED 3.5-4.5
Nikon introduced this lens as a cheaper alternative to the Nikkor 17-35mm 2,8 in 2000. The lens itself is not quite big, but at the front section the lens features a 77mm filter thread that is quite large. The lens retails for more than 500 Euro and the built quality you get for that price is a joke. The lens is very light (370g), which is no fault in itself, but the lens feels and handles like a plastic toy. Nikon surely needs to have a look at the competition which can produce lenses with very good built quality at much lower price points. The focus throw is quite short, leading to a very fast focus operation. The focus ring moves freely without any resistance at all, so manual focus is not recommended.
The optical quality on the DX sensor of the D200 is average. At the wide end it produces sharp pictures with very good, neutral colors. Sharpness declines moderately towards 35mm but is still on an good level. Field curvature is not a huge problem (but detectable on DX) with this wide angle, it is therefore better suited for landscape photography than the Tamron 17-50mm. In general it seems to be diffraction limted already at f/11. Optimal performance on a DX sensor is achieved at f/8 throughout the range. Distortions and a tendency to flare are big problems with this lens. At the wide end barrel distortion is much more prominent than with the Tamron 17-50mm 2,8 at the same focal length setting, I would not recommend this lens for architecture photography at all.
Nikon 20-35mm 2,8
Nikon's professional wide angle of the nineties unifies all characteristics that you would expect from such a lens: Excellent build quality, good optics and a (originally) high price tag. The price in Germany in 1998 was around 3500 DM, US about 1600 $. From 1993 to 2000 around 45.000 lenses were produced.
The importance of this lens and the absolute optical performance have to be seen in context with the wide angle lens development at Nikon during the 80's and 90's.
Since the last wide angle zoom by Nikon, the AI-S 25-50mm 4,0 ran out in 1985 there was a huge gap in the lens lineup. No professional zoom started wider than 35mm and the 24-50mm 3,5-4,5 zoom was just a mediocre performer. So, in 1993 this lens must have filled a big demand among professional photographers.
Unlike the successor 17-35mm 2,8 ED this lens lacks ED-glass and is being driven through screw drive AF. The build quality is superb. Some years ago I obtained a sample with fungus for cheap in the hopes of being able to repair it. Obviously it was all too late for this lens, as the fungus caused the left side of the frame to be washed out and I was not able to remove it. Some years later I am now on my second sample, which is is in perfect shape.
Therefore I decided to take the fungus-plagued lens completely apart just for fun. What I saw eclipsed the build quality of many AI and AI-S lenses that I "serviced" before. But even without taking it apart you can tell that this lens is build like a tank. The weight, the haptic caused by the crinkle finish and the fact that nothing has the slightest amount of play causes quite a satisfactory feeling when picking up this lens. I found many posts on the internet of the late nineties that criticize the weight of the lens, which is just 585g. Obviously people didn't know what was coming from 1999 on.
One thing that puzzles me a bit is the lens hood HB-8. It does the job like on any other wide angle and is even padded with felt on the inside. But this is the only Nikon bayonet hood that I know of that not clicks into place. You simply turn it until it sits in position.
The picture quality as a whole is very good if not excellent, but there are some aspects where the age of the lens manifests itself.
First the positive aspects: Colors and contrast are very good. Image rendering is very close to the AF-S 28-70mm with strong colors. CA is not that of an issue on the D700, however the internet is full of reports about CA being a problem on film and older sensors. Sharpness in the center is very good even wide open at all focal lengths. Wide open purple fringing can appear around highlights which disappears completely by f/4.
Corner sharpness is the biggest problem. From f/2,8 to f/5,6 at the wide end the corners are not simply unsharp - they are smeared. At f/8 corners get usable and at f/11 they are perfect. Between 24mm and 35mm you can get away with f/8 under the right conditions.
The problem in the corners is not unusual for wide angles around 20mm on full frame. For sure the successor 17-35mm 2,8 is better and the 14-24mm 2,8 lets you forget that smeared corners and wide angles did go hand-in-hand for decades.
But to put the severity of the problem into perspective: The Tamron 17-35mm also needs f/11 to achieve sharp corners at the wide end. But then there is still a kind of softness present in some shooting situations, whereas the 20-35mm 2,8 is good in any case.
As a budget alternative or supplement to a specialist lens like the 14-24mm 2,8 the 20-35mm is highly recommended. Compared to the Tamron 17-35mm the 20-35mm offers an overall more pleasing image quality with better colors and contrast.
Given the price level on the used market it is tough to decide if the Nikon Af-S 17-35mm 2,8 is the better choice. For most people it will be, since the successor offers AF-S and 3mm more on the wide end. For me this lens works very good as supplement to the 14-24mm 2,8 when I need slightly longer reach. A deciding factor can also be the quite common AF-S motor failures of the 17-35mm 2,8 which lead to a major repair. The quite fast screw drive of the 20-35mm will last very long - or until Nikon decides to drop the in-camera motor entirely.