Yeah, i agree but I kinda prefer d90 sound that d7k, hehe.

anyway 14-24 is pretty wide when you have FX
since you are preparing for FX then shouldn't be a problem right? hhahaha..

Yeah.. I've been having fun with UWA lately. I feel like buying tokina 11-16 2.8 however since it doesn't AF with my body, what is your suggestion? should I upgrade body 1st then go for 11-16 or go for 12-24 f 4 instead? pretty confusing. you have a good eye, I think in term of sharpness they both good. so any suggestion bro?

can't put filter also nvm lah.
you told me to go naked if you can't purchase good filter right? hahaha..
sharp with details and sharp w/o details? what does it mean? 
1st time heard that thing. can you please tell this newbie more. 

Most lens is sharp, taking 18-70 as an example. It's sharp but not much details in it if compare with 35/2
12-24 is sharp with full details even zoom till 100%
while 11-16 is sharp but when you zoom in more than 50%, there isn't much details left. It's become slight blurry with pixel dot

Just by trying 1116 only, i already understand what you mean by that. very true...

But no doubt go for either one will not wrong. xD

Uhmm.. Okay. Thanks
Yeah.. Thinking to upgrade but honestly I am expecting something with better IQ than D3100.
which doesn't burn my bank account
how about tokina 12-24? recommended? Nikkor very expensive.. 
should have a better consideration.

now 11-16? last time u compare 11-16 tokina with 12-24 nikkor ya?
hahaha.. I asked about comparison between 11-16 tokina and 12-24 tokina

Ohh.. Okay then I think I should upgrade body first before actually investing on lens more. Thanks!

---

Added on March 1, 2011, 11:50 am
12-24 more worthy but you will buy 11-16 if you were me? why?
isn't that statement seems opposing each other? 
I tried sigma 10-20. doesn't really like it.
11-16 doesn't AF with my body
12-24 do AF with my body.

or upgrade my body and buy 11-16?

DX
Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 10-20 f/3.5
Tokina 12-24
Sigma 8-16
Nikkor 10-24 / Tamron 10-24
Tokina 11-16
Nikkor 12-24

I tried sigma 10-20. my body doesn't AF with 1116 tokina. as it doesn't have AF motor.
Yes
Yeahh.. Agree D3100 IQ is good but the lacking of AF makes me difficult in choosing lens.
anyway thanks for the list bro. Will do further research. Thanks! 

totally agree with your list bro ...

on a budget thats why i went for the Tokina cos the D90 got built in motor ...

 
Read the post before jump into conclusion bro. some more giving feedback FTW!
I said. I am considering tokina 12-24 or tokina 11-16.
where if I want tokina 11-16 I have to upgrade my body because I don't have AF motor.
else 12-24 version II which has AF motor. so I wanted to know about the suggestion. read the previous post before saying "FTW" bro.
d7k second? 

pretty hard to find d7k second handed.
maybe after quite sometimes. 

^
Nikkor 12-24 ?

The price to pay for

Going back to your reply, I was looking around and found that the newer 10-24 is indeed better in corner sharpness than the older 12-24. I would tend to think so since the 12-24 came out in 2003 just when the 4Mp D2H came out. So in 6 years, surely the optics must have improved. Moreso to cater for the new 16Mp sensors.

Have a short read;

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TiRa

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Wahl

You can google and find a lot more comparison threads and most of them will conclude that the 10-24 is superior.

In any case, the 10-24 is 2mm wider and that's quite a bit on the wide end.

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00T8S2
Regardless of which UWA you take, if you don't employ technique to properly level the camera and not tilt it upwards (or downwards), you will still experience the distortion. That's the inherent limitation of the 35mm (or DX) format.
I have not played with the 11-16. I own the Sigma 10-20. It's not the best but I'm ok with it. Distortion? If you talk about barrel distortion, all UWAs the same.

From the examples I've seen on the forums, it does seem that the Nikon 10-24 is tops.
I think you're drooling at the wrong lens. You should be looking at the better Nikkor 10-24 while being cheaper too than the Nikkor 12-24.

go try out those lens urself.
u wont o wrong with either nikon or tokina.
the rest is depends on ur budget and chemistry with the lens liao.

sharpness, IQ...some ppl hav different opinion. maybe lemon copy or wat.
but still u have to try it out urself.

i'll stick to my tokina 11-16mm if u ask me.
but i luv the versatility of nikon 10-24mm.
the copies i tried, both nikon hav better color & contrast but not the details and sharpness on the tokina 11-16; all at tested at f4.
tokina tend to render it a bit darker, but edge to edge sharpness are much better.

i think either tokina 12-24mm or 11-16mm are good enough.
nikon DX UWA lens are way too expensive given its IQ.

DX users still got a lot of 3rd party lens, the FF 3rd party lens just suck 

This is the dumbest thing I ever heard  ... Does this means that all those driving imported cars must fill in Ron97 instead of Ron95 because they are "rich"? 

i fuel up myvi with ron97 all the time~!