| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2009 05:34:03 PM · #1 |
| The price is about the same, is 2mm that big of a difference? Id mostly be using it for landscape photography, not likely to do any indoor stuff. Does anyone have an uncropped 10mm and 12mm shot i could see? |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 05:38:58 PM · #2 |
| i went through all this with the lenses your comparing and got the sigma, and have no reason to regret. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 05:57:40 PM · #3 |
| Im the same, I was looking at both when I bought the sigma, & yes 2mm at that end is significant. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 06:07:56 PM · #4 |
I don't have both lenses of course, but I thought this might help you.Please excuse my nasty cupboards at work
 10mm
 12mm
Looking at them I'm not sure I could survive a 12mm lens, I use it a lot for interiors of small rooms ( caravans)
Steven
Message edited by author 2009-09-06 18:10:23. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 06:12:41 PM · #5 |
alright, thanks guys. I think ill bite the bullet and get the sigma. Ive read some reports of slight barrel distortion, and vingetting at 10mm, but for my amaturish goals, i think it will fit the bill. Especially being so much cheaper than the canon 10-22mm. Just gotta test it in the store to make sure i get a sharp copy..
Message edited by author 2009-09-06 18:13:01. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 06:17:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kawana:
alright, thanks guys. I think ill bite the bullet and get the sigma. Ive read some reports of slight barrel distortion, and vingetting at 10mm, but for my amaturish goals, i think it will fit the bill. Especially being so much cheaper than the canon 10-22mm. Just gotta test it in the store to make sure i get a sharp copy.. |
Good choice, ive noticed non of the problems that you have mentioned btw :) |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 06:48:21 PM · #7 |
The barrel distortion is certainly present at the 10mm end, have a look at the cupboard doors towards the outside of the photos, bent like a banana, particularity noticeable when you put some rectangles over it. that being said, I still believe its doing a great job, it is 10mm after all. There are fish eye lenses at that length. I don't think that the canon would be hugely different.
 |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 07:10:40 PM · #8 |
At 10mm
 |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 10:46:19 AM · #9 |
| Anybody have additional advice on this subject? I am currently considering the same two lenses to use with my D80. I own the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro and have been very pleased with it's build quality and performance. I see a lot of great photos here shot with the Sigma, but most of the on-line comparison reviews pick the Tokina as the better lens. I was set to buy the Sigma until I started to research the lenses (probably too much as usual). |
|
|
|
01/09/2010 11:27:47 AM · #10 |
I was hoping to sing the praises of the Tokina's distortion free optical geometry, but certainly the second picture here has barrel distortion. It's an exceptionally good lens though. I have a feeling there's no resolution to the problem of wanting all the width you can get :) |
|
|
|
01/10/2010 02:34:10 AM · #11 |
|
|
|
01/10/2010 05:24:06 AM · #12 |
FWIW, I recently had the option of buying a Tokina 12-24mm from  Shutter-for-Hire. However, at the same time I was messing around with a 10-22mm on a borrowed Canon and got some really great shots with it. I was assured that if I bought the Tokina, I would seriously miss that 2mm.
So I passed on the Tokina, and only a few days later was lucky enough to be tipped off that Vikas had posted his 10-20mm Sigma for sale. Now that Sigma is mine, and am glad that things just turned out as they did in terms of timing. |
|
|
|
01/10/2010 05:39:16 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by raish:
I was hoping to sing the praises of the Tokina's distortion free optical geometry, but certainly the second picture here has barrel distortion. |
Hey according to the details on your image, the second one was with the 18-200!
I don't know that I have any posted on DPC other than the one below but I also have the Tokina 12-24. I think it's an exceptionally good lens for the price. Not having used a 10-22 I can't say if I would miss the extra 2 mm, but I somehow doubt it.
ETA. Note to self, use 12-24 more often :)
Message edited by author 2010-01-10 05:40:57. |
|
|
|
01/10/2010 09:44:54 AM · #14 |
Oops.
It was the 12-24 though, I just checked the EXIF.
In praise of optical geometry (?) :
 |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 01:10:33 AM · #15 |
You might also consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2010 01:35:04 AM · #16 |
Oh that's a great idea, I'd forgotten about that lens. Came out after I got the 12-24mm. A friend of mine has it and it is really a nice lens.
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
You might also consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/24/2025 11:48:01 PM EST.
