Wide Angle Glass

I make regular use of Sigma's 10-20 HSM ultra-wide. They have announced a newer version (with a constant f/3.5 aperture), the availability of which should drive down the prices on the previous version. That's an incredibly cool range of focal lengths to work with, no question. The current version is selling at Amazon for $429. Terrific lens for the price.

Tokina's 11-16/2.8 is faster, but with a narrower range, and probably just outside your budget.

What sort of light are you usually working with? If these are evening performances with stage lighting, is the D90's good high ISO performance good enough for you to comfortably shoot at f/4 or f/5.6? If so, then the Sigma's for you.

I tried them all, ended up with the Tokina 11-16. LOVE it, but I think the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 are more useful, and both are in your budget. The 11-16 has VERY low and VERY manageable distortion, the Tokina's is manageable, the Sigma, at the wide end, has very weird mustache distortion which many don't like.

There's also a new Tamron 10-24 which looks, on paper, to be compelling, but the two reviews I've read so far leave me unconvinced.

There's a review of the 11-16 here on photo.net (I wrote it). I hope it's helpful. http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

Also, although I think I'm not allowed to link to it, I recommend reading Ken Rockwell's comparison of wide zooms. Google "ken rockwell digtal wide zooms compared" and I think it's the first link. Ken's stuff is very mixed in terms of its usefulness, but this particular piece is really, imho, great. He recommends just getting the Tokina 11-16, but I say be careful of that, because it's SO wide, even at the long end, that it's less useful for most of us than the 12-24 or 10-20 are.

I had the Tokina 12-24mm with my D80 and found it to be an amazing lens. I wanted to go wider however, so I replaced it with the Sigma 10-20mm, which I really enjoyed using. I had been interested in the Tokina 11-16mm, but in retrospect after buying the Sigma 10-20mm (because the Tokina was never in stock at B&H), I was happy I went with it because I needed a semi-normal focal length for photos. 11-16 is too limited for me with just one camera body. 16mm is still very wide, I would probably have to change lenses a few times an hour, which would be a pain. On a second body the 11-16mm would be perfect however. Responding to the comments about the distortion at 10mm with the Sigma, yes, if you are shooting a lot of horizon photos, you won't like it (that is where it shows up in lens tests). But when I want to go wide, I go wide, and with the Sigma, it was a good result.

Nikon D300, Sigma 10-20mm at 10mm:

And here is the Sigma at 20mm:

I love my 20 2.8 AIS -- buttery smooth focusing. I think I paid maybe $400 at KEH.

Rob,

Not really wide-angle that much on DX though...

Well, since we're linking to examples...

Here's the Sigma 10-20 at 16mm , and another at 17mm .

Distortion-wise, here's one at the treacherous 10mm end of the zoom , with extra pains having to be taken in orienting the lens, given all of the tell-tale linear elements of the scene. At 10mm, perspective wackiness is off the charts, to be sure.

I had a Tokina 11-16 for DX and also borrowed a 10-20 Sigma and Tokina 12-24. I found all of them to be good lenses. I would just pick the range or speed required and purchase which ever lens fit the need. I have since gone to FX so my needs have changed.

Matt:

The 17mm shot is absolutely beautiful!!!