Confusion on criteria- Nikon 10-24 vs Sigma 10-20

Focus speed doing landscape images should not be a factor in your lens selection.

What you plan on doing with your images is what should guide you. Are your images mainly for posting on the Internet? Or do you plan on making prints 4 to 5 feet wide?

I have some plans that I would like some of shots made into various sizes- perhaps the better one or two being 11X13.

I would also admit that this is a new photo venue for me. Normally, I am taking pictures of kids and now, grandkids. I do not think Ansel Adams is in any danger of losing his place in photography :)

Have you taken a look at the sigma 10- 20 3.5 , I have somewhat regrets about getting the sigma 8-16mm than a faster 10-20mm 3.5. Hard to manual focus at 8mm unless theres a large linear object . Ultra-wide is cool though I can almost get my ears in the shot :)

I have taken a look at the reviews for the faster Sigma (photozone.de) and decided against that one. I think 10mm is as wide as I want to go. Thanks though for the suggestion-

I have tried the Tokina 11-16, but the copy I rented produces far too bright pictures- almost washed out... ...The Sigma seems to be significantly brighter in its pictures.

This doesn't seem to make sense. How are lenses able to control the camera settings rather than you?

Have you taken a look at the sigma 10- 20 3.5
I have taken a look at the reviews for the faster Sigma (photozone.de) and decided against that one. I think 10mm is as wide as I want to go

Why would there be any concern about the 10-20mm 3.5 going wider than 10mm? Its a 10-20mm. It doesn't go more than 10mm wide.

As to the 4-5.6 Sigma, it seems adequate for your uses. Have you considered factors such as image quality, the quality of the physically construction of each is, how much each weighs, ect.?

John- Concerning the brightness issue, I am as confused as anyone. My settings were identical for all three lenses- the results were varied for all three.
Concerning the 10mm question, I was responding to the previous post asking if I had considered the Sigma 8-16.
I have considered and continue to do so- all the factors you have mentioned. Upon further review, I think I will be going with the Nikon knowing I will have a learning curve with that type lens.

Sorry I was referring to the sigma 10- 20mm f/3.5 EX HSM which is wider aperture I think it's $150 more than the sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 , and $200 less than the nikkor 10-24mm 3.5-4.5

Hummmm, something's wrong here....... the 'identical settings' should produce very,very similar results in terms of brightness.

Test 1, put the camera on Green Auto Everything and point the camera at a tree or building set the zoom to widest ie 10mm and take a shot on the Sigma and then mount the Nikon and take the same shot. Maybe mount D7000 on a tripod to ensure consistant 'aim'.

As a 2nd test, set the camera to Aperture Priority, fix the aperture of f8 and redo the 2 lenses, say at 10mm and again at 15mm and again at 20mm. You should have almost identical pairs of pictures as the camera will determine the shutter speed in response to your choice of aperture.

Final test, set the camera on Manual mode and on a normal bright day, set the iso to 200, the aperture to f8 and the shutter to 250th. Redo the shots at 10mm on both lenses. They should produce almost identical pictures.

If you don't get very similar pairs, there's a big problem. It may be related to chip errors from the Non-Nikon lenses to the camera and/or an electronic communication failure or major mechanical defect.

I've been very happy with my old 10-20mm 4-5.6 Sigma, but occasionally wish for the constant bigger aperture of the Tokina.