Suhit Gupta
02-27-2006, 11:47 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm' target='_blank'>http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"I don't worry about lens cost, so I'd buy the Nikon again today. If I was still a student I'd get the Tokina and never look back. The Nikon is easily the best lens if you split hairs and have a high resolution camera like a D2X or D200. It had better be for twice the price. The optical differences between the Nikon and the others are subtle. These differences won't be seen by most people. You'll make better pictures by spending the extra money on a photo trip instead of the Nikon lens. People read me because I'm direct. The weird thing about this review is the three other lenses can be pretty close. I would get the Tokina myself. If you have a special application the Tamron or Sigma might be a better choice than the Tokina. Read on if you have a specific need for weight or angle of view."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/wides-7396_02.jpg" /><br /><br />This is an issue we discussed on DMT almost a year ago, i.e. buying non-Nikon (or non-Canon in the original thread) lenses for a Nikon camera. This article seems to suggest that if you are going to be printing your photographs on relatively small paper, you will not really notice the difference. The difference is apparent only with 3 foot prints with a D200 (not even a D50 or D70). And if cost is an issue, it looks like Tokina wins out easily. Has anyone bought a Tokina lens before?