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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Sigma 10-20mm vs. 12-24mm
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/10/2006 03:48:51 PM · #1
Does anyone have had the chance to own or try this two lenses?

I'm figuring that the 12-24mm will serve more for a walk around lens, because of the extra reach, and I've readed that it's almost distortion free. But on the negative site it looks like there are very good, sharp copies and some more soft ones.

But how does they compare in terms of sharpness, wideness (I've read that the 2 less mm is 20% more wide, but what does this means in real usage?) and value? I think I'm comming for a good deal in a used in mint conditions like new 12-24mm. If so I could change my 18-70mm for a 24-70mm f2.8 (withch is also a controverse lens regarding results).

Any opinions are wellcome, thanks.
 02/10/2006 03:52:01 PM · #2
I had the 12-24 for Canon and it was a very good lens, indeed, I have had 20" x 30" prints made of shots taken with this lens and I'm more than happy with them. The advantage of this lens is that it is fullframe compatible, whereas the 10-20 is not.
 02/10/2006 04:21:09 PM · #3
hi, check here ... //www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/10-20_4-56_ex_dc_hsm
i'm buying this baby in a few months

peace
 02/10/2006 04:31:32 PM · #4
I'm getting the Nikon 12-24mm on Monday (prays for UPS truck). Most of the things I have read rated the lens excellent on everything except price. Check out this link from the Super-wide confusion thread.
Review
Let you know more Monday
 02/10/2006 05:05:21 PM · #5
The Tokina 12-24 (which I've heard is really close to the Nikkor, if not built better) is a really good lens...mine was defective, so I sent it back though, and opted for the 10-20 sigma...

The sigma is obviously wider, and it's fun...but really, anything 10-12mm really isn't all that 'useable' anyway...whereas the 12-24 is good throughout.
 02/10/2006 05:41:52 PM · #6
I have the 12-24mm and although it isn't as sharp as I'd like, it's ability to keep straight lines straight at 12mm is incredible and very useful for architecture. It's also nice to know it'll go on my film camera. It does flare quite a bit though.
Edit... I'm talking about the Sigma 12-24mm lens here!

Message edited by author 2006-02-11 07:21:32.
 02/10/2006 06:59:57 PM · #7
I've noticed that most persons that use the 12-24mm complain about flare. From the reviews I've readed I'm guessing that the 10-20mm is more sharp from corner to corner and it has more flare control because of it less pronounced front element.
The 10-20mm was my first thought but the possibility of a good deal with the 12-m24 made me put it on the game also.

Have anyhone ever use it for any kind of people photos? I was planning in using it for interior photos in weddings where sometimes I can't backup more to keep everyone in the photo.
 02/10/2006 07:30:11 PM · #8
The 12-24mm is great for people shots because the distortion is so manageable. In fact, I use it a lot for band shoots.
 02/10/2006 07:51:53 PM · #9
Is the 2mm difference very noticeable regarding usage?
 02/11/2006 04:23:07 AM · #10
The Sigma 10-20 has a field of view of 102 degrees while the Sigma 12-24 has a field of view of 122 degrees, making it "wider". This is because of the aspherical construction (slight fisheye). The 12-24 takes rear filters as opposed to the 10-20 taking 77mm screw on filters. The 10-20 is about US$100 less also.

I have never used either, but after reading reviews and looking at a few other things, I will probably opt for the 10-20 next month and then at some future date buy a true fisheye lense.
 02/11/2006 06:25:09 AM · #11
One point about screw-on filters on a 10mm lens... what on earth are you going to put on it? Polarisers are pointless for landscapes as it will only work on a small part of the image. And any filter on a wide-angle will make the ever-present problem of flare much much worse.
 02/11/2006 10:38:24 AM · #12
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
One point about screw-on filters on a 10mm lens... what on earth are you going to put on it? Polarisers are pointless for landscapes as it will only work on a small part of the image. And any filter on a wide-angle will make the ever-present problem of flare much much worse.


Heh heh, In my other thread lens choice I had almost made up my mind on the tokina, but now I am not sure. As it would be mainly landscapes I would like more info on the negative side of using a polariser on it, plus weight would have a bearing too ?

Paul.
 02/11/2006 11:03:29 AM · #13
As far as filters, it just depends on what you are doing. A person could use a polarizer & warming 81B, which I used here on my "Wide Angle" challenge (shot at 18mm)...



Or, a person could also use an infrared filter (also shot at 18mm)....


02/11/2006 11:11:12 AM · #14
Not a lot wrong with those examples Bud,

Paul.
 02/11/2006 11:19:38 AM · #15
Originally posted by aguapreta:
The Sigma 10-20 has a field of view of 102 degrees while the Sigma 12-24 has a field of view of 122 degrees, making it "wider". This is because of the aspherical construction (slight fisheye). The 12-24 takes rear filters as opposed to the 10-20 taking 77mm screw on filters. The 10-20 is about US$100 less also.

I have never used either, but after reading reviews and looking at a few other things, I will probably opt for the 10-20 next month and then at some future date buy a true fisheye lense.


I didn't realize this. If this is correct the 12-24mm is wider than the 10-20mm. That's a bit confusing to me. Because I've readed that this lens present straight lines about as straight as a ultra wa zoom lens could do. Better than the nikon version. So I don't see why the fisheye effect is really doing this? But if the 12-24mm is actually wider this is good news. I don't mind to cahnge weight in favor of a wider view.
 02/11/2006 11:46:32 AM · #16
Here are a few test shots from this morning, taken with my new Tokina 12-24 f/4...I really like it so far and am pretty impressed with the build and the quality. I don't have L stuff to compare it with, so for me I think it's amazing. :)

02/11/2006 12:53:22 PM · #17
Originally posted by aguapreta:
The Sigma 10-20 has a field of view of 102 degrees while the Sigma 12-24 has a field of view of 122 degrees, making it "wider". This is because of the aspherical construction (slight fisheye). The 12-24 takes rear filters as opposed to the 10-20 taking 77mm screw on filters. The 10-20 is about US$100 less also.

I have never used either, but after reading reviews and looking at a few other things, I will probably opt for the 10-20 next month and then at some future date buy a true fisheye lense.


The FOV is different because the Sigma 12-24 is designed for a Full Frame, 24mmx36mm, sensor and the 10-20 is designed for a smaller APS size (16mmx24mm) sensor. If you account for the difference in sensor size, the Sigma 12-24 has a FOV of about 100 deg

You CAN use front filters on the 12-24, the lens cap is a 2 piece affair, if you remove the center piece, it is threaded for a filter (87mm, I think) It won't vignette with a 10D, not sure about Full Frame
 02/11/2006 12:56:40 PM · #18
The Tokina definitely has threads in front and takes 77mm filters.
 02/14/2006 01:41:29 PM · #19
Originally posted by Nuno:
Is the 2mm difference very noticeable regarding usage?


I think it is. This dpreview forum message has an image inbedded with a fov comparisson of 10 vs 12 vs 15 fisheye vs 17 vs 24:

//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=11982207
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:52:21 AM

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: 08/29/2025 03:52:21 AM EDT.