Another Wide-Angle Quezzie...
 

I am considering buying a wide angle lens for my Nikon D5000 but I am not sure what to go for.

My main concern is that the wide-angle lens as a whole seems to be in the low teens to mid twenties focal length and whilst I have the 18-55mm kit lens would the difference of a few mm less on the focal range make enough of a difference to justify the cost?

Thanks for your patience with a total noob :D

It doesn't sound like much does it ?however the angle of view provided by an ultra wide is truly amazing .Even the difference at 10 and 12 mm is surprising .

I would strongly recommend the Sigma 10 to 20 3.5 to 5.6 .......once used you you'll wonder how you ever got on without it .

[QUOTE=matt wilson;21474]I would strongly recommend the Sigma 10 to 20 3.5 to 5.6 .......once used you you'll wonder how you ever got on without it .[/QUOTE]

Ok thanks, do you know if this lens will autofocus on a D5000? I'm guessing not?

Sure it will - as long as you make sure you're buying that lens with a Nikon fit - most "3rd party" lenses put different fits on their lenses to make sure they correspond exactly with the requirements of each camera make - specifically the location of all the contacts between lens and camera.

The only problem I can see is that, as far as I can tell, Sigma make a 10-20mm[B] f/4 - 5.6[/B] and a more expensive 10-20mm [B]f/3.5[/B] (both lenses are for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony). There seems not to be a "3.5 to 5.6".

Ok, thanks for your help guys.

Don't waste your money buying the f/3.5 for a third of a stop extra over the f/4 - f/5.6 as it isn't worth it!

Although it's only a third of a stop at the wide end. At the long end it's a stop and a third faster, which can make a big difference to some people (street photographers for example).

Sorry Geoff 4 to 5.6 ..............every review I have read says go for that over the faster lens .

Chris P would agree that the f/4 - f/5.6 is optically great enough not to warrant the extra expenditure of the faster lens in most cases.

Fine.... I wasn't saying the f/3.5 is necessarily better, just that the lens mentioned earlier wasn't actually 3.5 to 5.6, as Matt had said, but 4 to 5.6. It has to be said, though, that while f/3.5 compared to f/4 at the wide end isn't much improvement, f/3.5 over the [I]whole[/I] zoom range is useful.

As to the quality of the lens in general, I'll take your word for it.