I was told this lens was just a remake of the old Sigma 12-24 for full frame cameras, but there’s more to it than that (although the big bulging front element will certainly remind you of it). First and foremost, lets be clear: 8mm is significantly wider than 10mm, so I consider this lens somewhat different than the other ultra-wides. At 8mm you can get your shoes in the picture if you tilt the lens down just a bit. It’s WIDE.

It’s also quite sharp, especially in the center and especially at 8 to 10mm, which is probably what you’re getting this lens for anyway. More surprisingly it doesn’t have horrible barrel distortion at 8mm, which is pretty amazing. At the longer end its not quite as sharp, and at any focal length the corners and even the edges are a little mushy. Chromatic aberration is pretty well controlled too.

So I’m surprised: I expected to say it was a useful lens if you really want the widest you can get, but otherwise had a lot of weaknesses, which is what I said years ago about the 12-24 full frame lens. But really, this one not only lets you get ultra, ultra wide, it can compete with all the other ultra wides from 10 to 20mm too. It gives up some aperture to most of the others, but otherwise it’s very comparable to them. And from 8mm to 10mm, well there’s no comparison at all. This isn’t the lens for everyone, many people will never shoot this wide, but if you think you might, this is a great choice and I can recommend it without reservation.

Comparisons

Comparing the ultra-wide crop-sensor camera lenses is an extremely difficult task, so I’ll put the summary first: they all deliver excellent image quality and you can’t go wrong with any of them. To my ‘just taking pictures’ assessment, they are all excellent. There are some differences though, so I’ll try to point those out so you have a better chance at choosing the one that’s best for you.

• Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6 is the widest (and remember, 8mm is 20% wider than 10mm, so it’s a very real difference). Not quite as sharp in the corners as the others, and lower maximum aperture, but it’s really pretty good, especially considering it’s the widest of the wide.

• Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5G Shows a fair amount of barrel distortion at 10mm (note to self: never take girlfriend’s portrait with this lens) and doesn’t have the best corner sharpness of the group. It’s got the largest range and is fast to autofocus, which makes it a great wide-angle walkaround lens. If I was mostly going to shoot at 15-24 and occasionally shoot wider, this would be a great choice. If I was going to take lots of 10mm scenic shots, I’d probably look at one of the others – they’re a bit better at 10mm.

• Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a bit more distortion than the others but delivers very nice images and is also built well. It does everything well.

• Nikon 12-24 f/4G has exceptional center resolution and is very flare resistant, but does show some field curvature at 12mm. It’s a very good lens, maybe better than the competition, but not as much better as its price would suggest.

• Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (version I or II, they aren’t very different) gives you the widest aperture if you’ll be working in low light (with ultra wides, depth of field is rarely an important point), but it’s a bit soft at f/2.8, so the aperture advantage isn’t huge (I usually shoot it at f/3.5 if I can to get it sharper). It has very little vignetting and distortion, probably the least of the group. It does show quite a bit of chromatic aberration at times, but overall it may be the best image quality of the group.

• Tokina 12-24 f/4 PRO is built like a sturdy tank (and therefore a bit heavier). It’s a good lens but does tend to give low contrast images when shot into the sun and has a tendency to show some chromatic aberration when objects are backlit. This is the one I’d take if conditions were rough: I pity the rock this bad boy falls on. Poor rock.

But like I said above: they’re all excellent. We hardly ever get anything but happy comments about any of them.