DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> UWA lens - help me choose
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/19/2013 10:41:00 AM · #1
Wondering if anyone had positive or negative experiences with either the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24 f/4? I'm looking to mess around with wide angle lenses and want to pick up a WA in the cheap. After plopping $$$ on a 7D and 100-400L, im too strapped for the Canon 10-22. Plus, considering I dont do much wide angle stuff, im not sure its worth the money.

Tokina reportedly has better sharpness and the constant f/4. Siggy has the extra 2mm on the side end. Not sure if 2mm is all that different? More so than a few steps backwards can't solve?

Never bought either brand, and know they can suffer from quality control issues, so was hoping for some forum feedback.

Thanks!
garry.
 02/19/2013 10:47:32 AM · #2
I would go for the sigma, for its price its not too far off the canon in sharpness but the canon is definitely worth it at double the price. FWIW you can find them used right now for about $500.
 02/19/2013 10:49:27 AM · #3
Just to add to your confusion, I have the Tamron 10-24 and I love it. I think it is my sharpest lens. You can often pick them up used in the $300-400 range.
 02/19/2013 10:53:53 AM · #4
I have the Sigma and it's awesome. I highly recommend it.
 02/19/2013 10:55:38 AM · #5
I have the 12-24 Tokina (for Nikon) and haven't got a bad thing to say about it. One of my favourite lenses for the crop sensor camera. My highest scoring image on DPC is with that lens.
 02/19/2013 11:05:59 AM · #6
Oh boy, not much consensus :)

Should have mentioned this above, but I'm trying to keep the 77mm filter size so that I can keep the filter with future lens purchases 24-105, 17-40 or 24-70.

EDIT: NEVERMIND, seems all the wide angles above have the 77mm filter.

Message edited by author 2013-02-19 11:08:53.
 02/19/2013 11:08:28 AM · #7
I started out with the Tokina 12-24 and now have the canon 10-22 and a Tokina 11-16.

The 12-24 was ok but was a bit soft on the outer edges. I'm not sure if it was just my copy or a common issue. Also, the extra 2mm doesn't sound like a lot but you can really tell the difference. The build seemed pretty sturdy.

The canon is great, the image quality is superb. It does cost a lot more but you can find used ones at a decent price. The 2 I own were both used and bought at really good prices.

I know the Tokina 11-16 isn't on your radar but I do have to say that's a really good lens as well. It's built like a tank and is also a constant 2.8. The downside is the focal range is so small that its almost like having a prime. Image quality is superb also.
 02/19/2013 11:08:42 AM · #8
as shown here the sigma compares nicely with the canon. the tokina isnt available however..

//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=712&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
 02/19/2013 11:24:38 AM · #9
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Just to add to your confusion, I have the Tamron 10-24 and I love it. I think it is my sharpest lens. You can often pick them up used in the $300-400 range.

I also love the Tamron. I got it after admiring some of Spiff's shots.
 02/19/2013 11:38:20 AM · #10
I have the Sigma and love it. I remember a similar conversation when I was trying to decide on an UWA. It seems that almost all the UWA's are superb lenses. Canon has the slight edge, but it also has the higher price.
 02/19/2013 12:19:31 PM · #11
I had access to the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 11-16 lenses when I was shopping for UWA. For the copies that I had, the Tokina was sharper across the frame in addition to being constant f/2.8 the Tokina has great contrast, but does have a bit more CA. I ended up with the Tokina and have been really pleased.
 02/19/2013 12:36:33 PM · #12
The Tokina 11-16/2.8 does seem like a great lens, but its out my budget unfortunately.

Looks like the Siggy is most popular on this site based on the number of owners. Not sure if that is cause its a better lens, Sigma has better marketing and brand name, or that the 10-20 is an older lens so more are in circulation?
02/19/2013 12:47:53 PM · #13
As others have said, I think that all of the UWA lenses are essentially comparable in real world performance. I do find myself at times wishing I had the 10-24 range of the Tamron.
 02/19/2013 09:57:26 PM · #14
Originally posted by gcoulson:
The Tokina 11-16/2.8 does seem like a great lens, but its out my budget unfortunately.

Looks like the Siggy is most popular on this site based on the number of owners. Not sure if that is cause its a better lens, Sigma has better marketing and brand name, or that the 10-20 is an older lens so more are in circulation?


I've got the Sigma and haven't really got a single bad thing to say about it. Used it for years and it's held up great being schlepped through the mountains. Reasonable size, extremely fun to use.

I like the build of Sigmas over Tamron's, personally, but Tamrons are generally sharper with better contrast and slightly worse AF (but AF doesn't matter much on a UWA...).

ETA: I think a lot of it is that people read enough reviews of people like me that say "it does what it does well" and figure that many folks can't be wrong. It's worth noting that Tamron's service seems to be very good, as does Sigma's, as seen here.

Message edited by author 2013-02-19 22:27:36.
 02/20/2013 12:41:39 AM · #15
I have, and hate/love the 12-24 Sigma rectilinear UWA.

It's like nothing else, it really does do a job that can't be done by any other lens on my 5D.

With that being said? Vignetting is horrible, sharpness sucks, I use it stopped down to f/9 and am still usually not super pleased, and it loves to flare if the sun is even anywhere near the frame.

Still.. It's an awesome lens. ;)

I don't think you can go wrong with either of your choices, but I think the optics are probably better in the Tamron, and that's probably more important.

Message edited by author 2013-02-20 00:42:42.
 02/20/2013 08:55:45 AM · #16
Originally posted by Cory:


I don't think you can go wrong with either of your choices, but I think the optics are probably better in the Tamron, and that's probably more important.


the Tamron is a good lens, but is is VERY soft wide open at 10mm and has a tendency for some excessive chromatic aberration which is easily corrected in Lightroom.

I sold it to get the Canon and it the Canon is clearly a superior lens, it wasn't even a contest. You can look through my portfolio, most of my older UWA stuff was with the Tamron. Stopped down as with any lens it is fine, but if you need to use it more open or need good sharpness, I'd look for a better option.


Message edited by author 2013-02-20 08:56:13.
 02/21/2013 11:06:44 AM · #17
with lower budget, you won't go wrong with Sigma 12-24 available on //www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004M18N2U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004M18N2U
 02/21/2013 12:53:04 PM · #18
Beware the 12-24.

The new lens is sharper, but the correction sucks, so calling it rectilinear is a joke almost. The old one has issues, but is very well corrected.

*shrug* If you're shooting APS-C, and don't intend to go full-frame, then I'd probably consider the 8-16 Sigma too.

I found an article talking about all three... Seems to be pretty useful.
 02/21/2013 01:06:03 PM · #19
You may want to compare here
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:46:11 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/03/2025 11:46:11 PM EDT.