which UWA for the rare user?

I find that most of the time the 24mm of my 24-70 is wide enough. most is not good enough, however, and so I am contemplating my options: 14-24, which is expensive, but very good. 16-35, a bit less expensive, a bit less good.

used 18mm, maybe not enough difference from 24? a Sigma 12-24, which is somewhat of a gamble, I guess, but cheap(ish)

what would YOU choose, if you only want occasional UWA, price matters, to a degree, could be ignored if necessary, portability would be great, could be ignored, if necessary, IQ needs to be good enough to want to keep the pic, else why bother? filter ability need not apply, I'd use HDR if I need more range. (anybody want to buy a set of barely used Lee filters, BTW??? )
Thanks for ideas...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/helmutsteinwender/
http://helmuts.smugmug.com
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/helmutsteinwender

I, personally, would get the Tokina 11-16 2.8 for $599. Fairly wide, fast lens (wouldn't be using for the bokeh, just would make it easier to use in darker spot/indoors, etc). Very sharp too ( http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1 ... yes, it's a Canon body, but just check those resolution figures!). Good build quality, good AF ability, very little distortion, and the price really isn't that bad.

I was first looking at a few Sigma lenses but, this tokina just seems sharper and it's a faster lens.

The 11-16/2.8 is also good, but a bit too wide and with less zoom range to chose from.

For occasional usage the 12-24 on Dx is plenty.

--
- sergey

I have a similar question, but price is a bigger factor. I have a DX camera.

I bought a wide angle lens one (Tamon 11-18). Took less than 100 shots probably over several years. I bought it after a trip to Europe where I wanted it all the time for architecture, ruins, landscapes. I get home and buy it, and use the 24-75 all the time...

However, I am going on a trip where I envision needing it again. If history repeats itself, I won't use the lens much once I get back. So, around $200 is the max in my scenario.

I have an 18-200. That is almost wide enough. It might be. But the 18-200 is slow, so not useful for indoors.

Is there anything wider than 18, faster than f/4-5.6, for under $200? Or am I fantasizing?

When I added a UWA lens (for DX) a couple of years ago, the Tokina 11-16 wasn't out. And the Sigma 10-20 was an older generation (and I think a bit better/faster?).

There were three choices - Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20. (Also the Nikon 14-24, which is in another league.)

Now you also have Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 10-24.

The original 3 I looked at were about even - all were pretty good, all had different strengths and weaknesses. I went with the Nikon 12-24, partly based on name brand (would have gotten the Sigma if I hadn't had a bum Sigma before), partly on lens performance.

As I found it, the Nikon had better flare resistance than the other two, but had some hard-to-correct moustache distortion. The Tokina had the easiest distortion type to correct in post processing, but had a flare issue. The Sigma was kind of Nikon-like in distortion and had some flare issues, but was wider and cheaper. The new Tokina is said to be better than the three, but doesn't have as wide a range (and getting up to 24 is important to me). The new Nikon 10-24 sounds like a good choice to me these days, if you can afford it.

In short, I think all of them are pretty decent, assuming you don't get a 'bad copy', which I'd worry more about from Sigma than anyone else.

I was very happy (still am) with my 12-24. It is very sharp (except at 12mm in the corners), and pretty light. It takes filters, and it controls flair pretty well - something important in a UWA where you will often have the sun in frame or just out of it.

Eventually I got the 14-24 also, and I carry both it and the 12-24, depending on the bag (14-24 is hard to fit in a small bag), need for filters, usage, etc. I originally didn't get it because my wife thought it was 'too heavy' compared to the 12-24.

If you are price conscious on the lens, get whichever has a good price and be happy. If you are an IQ fanatic, get the 14-24. If you want a good IQ, range, and don't mind the price, get the Nikon 10-24. Compromise? Sigma or Tokina. All of the lenses have minor flaws you will have to work around, be it price, distortion, lack of filters, size, f-stop, whatever. None of them are dogs.

oops, forgot to say: it's gotta be an FX lens, sorry
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/helmutsteinwender/
http://helmuts.smugmug.com
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/helmutsteinwender

I'm pretty sure that limits your choices to:

Tokina SD 16-28 f/2.8 (IF) FX - but it's not out yet: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022211tokina16282pt8.asp
Nikon 20mm f/2.8D (relatively cheap)
Nikon 14mm f/2.8D
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D
Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D (also cheap last time I looked)
And of course the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

If I was on a limited budget I'd settle for either the 20mm for its small size or wait for the Tokina FX lens if you prefer the range. I'm hoping it won't cost more than 800usd.

To define the UWA you prefer, you can start with a Tokina 19-35mm and later select a prime lens accordingly. My Tokina is (by far) not as sharp as my Nikon primes but is hard to beat when I travel.

For occasional wide angle I generally stitch several images together. Works for me.

--
Geoff
Gold Coast, Australia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14042476@N08/