Nikon’s 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 is a new super-wide-angle zoom for DX-format Nikon bodies (ie, not full-frame). Its 2.4x zoom range offers an equivalent focal length of 10-36mm, which is pretty much state of the art right now.

The extra zoom range is important. At the wide-angle end, it means you can cram even more in and produce even more dramatic perspective effects, while at the long end, the 36mm equivalent focal length is verging on an everyday ‘standard’ focal length (for many decades, a 35mm lens was the street photographer’s lens of choice, after all).

Super-wide-angle lenses have traditionally been pretty specialised devices, even the zooms – okay for specific tasks, but no good for leaving on the camera all the time. This one, though, is much more versatile and could be perfect as a ‘walk-around’ lens for travel photography in crowded streets, say, or photojournalism in general.

But doesn’t Nikon have a 12-24mm super-wide-angle lens already? Why make another? Well, competition from independent lens makers has highlighted two issues with this older lens. First, the focal range; 12mm is pretty wide, even on a DX-format body, equating to 18mm in film/full-frame camera terms. But Sigma’s 10-20mm and Tamron’s 10-24mm go wider still, and on a Nikon body they offer the equivalent of 15mm focal length. Now the difference between 15mm and 18mm might not sound much, but at these focal lengths it’s significant.

The other problem with the Nikkor 12-24mm is the price. Yes, it’s an extremely well-made lens, which delivers excellent results, but with a list price of £1,000, it’s well into professional territory. Not many amateurs/enthusiasts have that kind of budget.

So is the new Nikkor 10-24mm the answer? It goes wider, so Nikon does now have a lens which matches the focal lengths of those pesky independents, and with a list price £200 lower than the Nikon 12-24mm, it’s cheaper too. It still weighs in with an SRP of £800, though, so has Nikon done enough? A lens that costs twice as much as its third-party rivals had better be good...

Fortunately, it is. The test charts show extremely consistent sharpness with only a slight drop in definition at maximum aperture and no significant variation across the zoom range. This means you can use this lens at any setting without having to worry about where its ‘sweet spots’ are. It might not have quite the outright sharpness of the 12-24mm (we’d have to test both lenses side-by-side on the same body to be sure), but it’s very good.

There is some barrel distortion at the minimum focal length, and this turns into mild pincushioning at medium-long focal lengths. Neither is particularly strong, and easily disguised by the wild perspective effects you get at these focal lengths anyway.

We couldn’t spot any chromatic aberration at all, either, though here things are not quite what they seem. Newer Nikon bodies filter out chromatic aberration very effectively when you shoot JPEGs, but it’s still there in the original RAW data, so that if you use a third-party program like Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom or Aperture to process your RAW files, you’ll find this lens does produce some colour fringing after all. It’s not much, and it’s confined mainly to the extreme edges of the frame at the shortest focal lengths, but it’s there.

Whether this lens outperforms its third-party rivals is a tough one. On balance, yes, but largely through its consistency and its good control of distortion and chromatic aberration. There really isn’t that much in it.

But maybe the Nikon 10-24mm can establish its superiority through its build quality and handling? After all, you might expect a camera maker’s own lenses to look and feel better than anyone else’s.

It’s tricky. Good though the Nikon is, it’s not really any better than the Sigma 10-20mm or Tamron 10-24mm. Both these lenses are extremely well made and handle beautifully, and the Nikon has no real advantage here. The zoom action is good, the autofocus is fast and quiet, and the full-time manual AF override works well. There’s no slop or play in the lens barrel and the finish is good too. There’s no problem at all with how this lens looks and works, but at the same time there’s really nothing in its construction or operation to make it worth twice the price of its rivals.

The other issue, right now at least, is that being a new lens the Nikon 10-24mm is yet to get any major discounting among retailers. Indeed, at the time of going to press, it was being offered at similar prices to the (theoretically) more expensive Nikon 12-24mm f4.

This is likely to change, but the Nikon 10-24mm will always be much more expensive than third-party equivalents, and while its performance and handling are excellent, it really doesn’t have clear and obvious performance advantages – not enough to justify that kind of price difference, anyway. Perhaps it all depends on just how much you want to have Nikon-branded lenses on your Nikon bodies.

Final Verdict A great lens which delivers consistent results and has a wide zoom range, but you’re paying plenty for the Nikon brand OVERALL

Our lens reviewer, and technical expert, Rod is a veritable photographic encyclopaedia. His illustrious CV has seen him write for many mags, websites and journals.