Hi Guys, I'm in a bit of a pickle at the moment. I'm heading to Europe in a couple of months and I'm looking for an ultra-wide angle lens for my D7000 to be used for landscape photography.
After a great deal of reading, the two top choices appear to be either the Nikon 10-24 and the Tamron 10-24. DP Review gives the Tamron a reasonable write up, but with the caveat that corners are a little soft and and perhaps the contrast isnt as good as it possibly could be. They dont have a review for the Nikon lens, but Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan seem to think that the Nikon edges out all other lenses when it comes to sharpness, contrast and brightness.
The Nikon at this point appears to be the obvious choice, until it comes to the price. Grey market prices for the Nikon are ~$900 compared to the Tamron at ~$500. Thats quite the difference. So my question to anyone who found themselves in my situation and has then come to own either of these lenses; is the Nikon worth the extra money, or is the quality of the Tamron adequite on a 16mp sensor because the images are going to be sharpened with contrast and vibrance added where needed in post processing anyway?
I really dont want to have to buy glass twice, so is the Nikon really worth almost double the price of the Tamron?