Wide Angle lenses

Need some helps folks...

Im looking at getting a new prime lens for my D50. Im currently looking at the Sigma 10-20mm or the Nikkor 12-24mm.

Iv been reading reviews all morning and have come to the conclusion that im stuck! LOL - There are pros and cons to both of them.

The Nikkor has the best overall performance BUT its high in price (overprices imo) and it has alot of chromatic aberration and distotion when used at 12mm

The Sigma just falls behind, suffering from some vignetting at 10mm and is slighlty softer then the Nikkor - however it is cheaper.

Has anyone had experiance with either of these???

No - although a UWA is on my wish list, I looked at the reviews and have chosen the Canon 10-22 (so not an option for you). However another you may wish to consider (depending on what you want to shoot) is the Tokina 12-24. It also has it cons but comes in cheaper than the Nikkor 12-24

I was speaking to the guy in Griggs's shop last week as you'll recall about the Sigma 18 - 50 fixed aperture lens.
I asked him what the widest lens would be without getting a fish-eye effect on a digital, according to him he said unlike 35mm film lenses you can go down to 10 - 12mm.

I am actually considering the 10-20mm at the moment Nero. Im definatly going with sigma though . reading through more reviews and talking to some peeps, the 12-24mm is best suited for 35mm film slrs rather then DSLRs - i think i need a play

Is it a fixed aperture, the one I saw was a cracker, bit too pricey though.

was it the f/2.8 maro?? Did you have a play with it?? Looks as though ill be spending around £300 on the wide angle - they are quite hard to find for any less than that - unless you go to ebay of course bu even then they're around the £250 mark!
Ps thanks for asking about them btw

Yes, a 2.8 macro, the lens diameter was enormous, and it was a bit heavy as well.

Yeah they are big. 67mm i think. My tamron is a 62mm and then the wide angle im looking at takes a 77mm filter! Massive!!! Never actually held on though, but then again, it is a macro, so will be mounted on the tripod and weight shouldnt be an issue

Kanikula.......

Think we're about the only folk on here with a D50.

Obviously I've seen your results (which are fab) but I wondered what your views were on this particular model now it's a few years old.

From what I can gather it's (despite being slightly older) believed to be superior to the D40 as it came along slightly before the 'mass produced' DSLR game. Some even say better than the D40X in terms of build quality providing you can live with a few less MP?

Certainly (when looking at upgrades) I rule out the D40 as it gives me no more and rule out the D40X simlpy because of what lttle extra you get for the money.

Is the only 'step up' D80 or D200 ?

Your right Phil, the D50 is a brill cam and will not limit you technically for many years. There are lots of *little* extras on newer models but they are more of a wanted feature than a needed one.

Im like you, iv not even bothered considering the 40 range as the D50 outstrips them. However i have started to look more at the lens rather than a new cam (at the moment) as IMO the lens is more important than the body. Upgrading the lens will open up a whole new experience photography wise and will also serve you well when you come to upgrade later on.

Im currently leaning more towards the D200 and infact looking to upgrade to it in the next 6-12 months or so - This is purly as i want to go pro and set up a business in animal sports and portrait photography. If that wasnt the case id stick with my faithful D50

This link may come in useful to you as it compares both the D80 and D200.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm

HTH