Looking at getting a lens for landscape. I have read here and there are a lot of recomendations which have helped me narrow the list down to this
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX AF
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 Ex DC HSM
Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 ED DX
The first two are priced fairly close to each other but the Nikon is another $300 on top.
All reports indicate that they are all good lenses, but what distinguishes one from the others. Is the Tokina going to be better at f/2.8 or wont that make a difference agains the f/3.5 for the others?
Is the Nikon that much better that the $300 can be justified? It may be more usable with a larger range, but I already have a kit lens that does 18mm
The Sigma is the cheapest (not by much) buthas more range than the Tokina.
Also, Tamron make a 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. i dont nsee much metnion of Tamron here. is there something they are not doing right or are there lenses just not as good. The Tamron is around $100 cheaper than the first two.
If it matters, this is for a D80 (and a D7100 when it comes out )