I've been using a Tokina 19-35mm zoom for almost a year on both Nikon film
(N90 & N75) and digital (D70) and I've thought it was a very competent lens
and well worth the money (under $200).  But since at 19mm on the D70 the
Zoom's angle of view is what I'd see with a 28 on the film camera, I really
felt the need for a wider lens on the digital -- and if I was going to spend
the better part of a grand (12-24's selling for $709 in NY), I wasn't
willing to sacrifice having a hyper-wide lens for the film camera too.

Then I got a chance to get the 14mm for about $425 and jumped at it.  I was
a little worried since it's selling new for $900 and used for around $600
(when available) but apart from some minor cosmetic issues (which Goo-gone
will surely fix) and the lack of lens cap(s), I spend a fairly nervous week
until it arrived yesterday.

I took shots with the D70 with the Tokina at 35 & 19 mm and the 14mm Sigma!
Not only is the resolution really good (at least as much as I can tell with
a 5 MP digital -- film will have to wait for later this weekend), but the
contrast absolutely blew the Tokina away!  The images sparkle!  Even the
"macro" shots of single flowers about 3" in diameter filling the frame are
competent, though no match for the Tamron 90mm macro.  It's an incredible
lens.

<RANT/>
I've believed for a long time (and still do) that prime (single focal length
lenses) are inherently superior to comparable zooms. Maybe a better (i.e.
more expensive) wide angle zoom wouldn't have such a lack of contrast, but
this is eye-opening.  Of course when I used my old (okay, ancient) Minolta
XK, I carried around a huge bag with 11 lenses and tele-extender and was
switching them (it seemed) every other shot, but there was never a feeling
that I was giving up anything in the optical quality of the images I got
from them.

Unfortunately, for most lenses these days, a single focal length lens is
presumed to be a professional lens and the aperture is f/2.8 (and larger)
for short and medium lenses and somewhat larger for really long telephoto
lenses which makes the price generally astronomical.  For example, I don't
need a 300mm lens at f/2.8 -- I could make do with one that was f/5.6 but
can you find one?  Nah!  Even when I used the 35mm f/1.8 lens on the
Minolta, I almost never shot it at wider than f/5.6 or so.

Do I love the convenience of a Nikon 24-85mm Zoom that encompasses two of my
favorite focal lengths (24mm and 75-85mm) in one piece of equipment _and_
is a 1:2 macro as well.  Hell, yes!  Is it a very good lens?  Of course.  Is
the optical equal of the old Minolta 24mm and 85mm lenses?  Certainly for
shooting with the D70 there's no doubt that its totally adequate and if all
I want to make are 4x6 to 8x10 prints, probably all I ever need.  But could
I make a decent 16x20 with these images?  No.  But I made really fine 11x14
from about half of a 35mm Kodachrome frame from the old Minolta lenses
regularly.

So what's an amateur photographer to do?  Suffer with the ever-wider zooms
with ever-decreasing optical quality, especially at the zoom limits.

</RANT>

Norm