| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2007 05:36:21 AM · #1 |
I was looking into the wide lenses and a lot of good photos were taken with the Sigma 10-20. It was a toss up between the 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24. However, a photographer friend of mine has said that it's just not it to get the Sigma. While the 10-20 is definitely the widest, you will have chromatic aberration, barrel distortion and that the limited warranty means that not even Sigma is confident in it's product.
Now I've seen some of the pictures taken with it, and they are beautiful. But with those that own the Sigma, how much did you have to crop out or how much post-processing did you have to do in order to get the image you thought you captured in your lens?
I only ask because I really want a wide lens, and I wish I could take a picture of the same scene, with the same camera, under the same conditions with the two lenses to see if I can spot any 'imperfections'.
I will say that at the shop I was playing with it in, it had an award placed beside it for something. It was in Japanese so I don't know what. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:10:57 AM · #2 |
I used to own the Tokina 12-24 and it will wipe the floor with the Sigma in build quality and picture quality, the only thing you need to ask yourself is this.. Can you live without those extra 2mm on the wide side?
I played with the Sigi and felt that although it is not a bad lens it felt cheap (sorry to the owners of this lens) I did not like it or the 2 or 3 shots i took with it.
I just sold my Tokina for Nikon because I needed to get another lens and I was in POORMAN MODE so had to sell... I miss it a bit, it is a cracking bit of kit and its f4 all through unlike the Sigi that is 4.5-5.6 if i remember correctly.
The Tokina is as good as the Nikon, not better, but it gives it a damn good run and is 1/3rd the price.
Try it - Buy it .... simple math.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:10:58 AM · #3 |
Absolutely nothing wron with the Sigma. I read a comparison between the Sigma and the Canon on the slrclub.com site(Korean) and compared the detail pics the evaluator posted. The canon is better but only slightly so, the Sigma, for the untrained eye, in many cases performed better.
Go with the Sigma, you will be surprised. I will see if I can find the link to the comparison, even if you can not read Korean, the pictures speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:19:47 AM · #4 |
The CA and distortion are going to be a problem with any WA lens, its the nature of the beast.
The best advise is read what you can and trust whom you will. I've seen different people swearing by or at each of 3 main choices, Sigma, Tokina and Nikon. It really seems to come down to which you can find or afford.
Not much help, am I?
Edit add:
Just to fuel the fires...
Super wide angles shootout
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 06:23:47.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:20:32 AM · #5 |
Love my sigma 10-20. I couldn`t live without the extra 2mm.
No chromatic aberration or barrel distortion problems.
Review here.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:21:41 AM · #6 |
//www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=user_review&no=14563
I hope it works.... look at the Sigma pics. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:25:27 AM · #7 |
Bought the Sigma 10-20 some weeks ago and I'm very pleased so far, perfect sharpness, no chromatic aberration or barrel distortion problems.
I've heard, that SOME lenses are not perfectly manufactured, but you can get one, test it and change it back at the shop if you get one of the less perfect ones. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 06:57:55 AM · #8 |
another review here:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
I've been reading around, and it would seem that the sigma is just as good as the tokina in most aspects, and a few different places actually reckon the CA control is better on the sigma. One thing that the sigma does seem to have an issue with (read the ken rockwell review) is that it has weird distortion @ 10mm that photoshop's lens correction can't fix, though if you use ptlens plugin, that seems to fix it just fine. That said, that review reccomends the tokina.
Just a few things to remember when your reading reviews - If your going to be using this lens as a landscape lens, then wide open performance, and wide open quality is a completely useless measure, as you'll be stopping at least f/8. Which is also why I don't think f/4 is that big of an advantage on the tokina. Also build quality is subjective... 80% of the time it'll be mounted on a tripod, and its very unlikely to fall off :P
I'm quite keen to see what people think too... as I'm looking to get one of these two... initially i was leaning towards the sigma 10-20, as i thought they were pretty similar in terms of IQ, but it seems people are claiming tokina superiority? how true?
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 06:58:42. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 07:02:53 AM · #9 |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 07:03:04 AM · #10 |
also, in the "flare" comparison, the sigma seems to have an edge... which would be important for sunset/rise shots...
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-flare.htm |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 09:12:50 AM · #11 |
All these US-based reviews seem to have the Tokina and Sigma as costing about the same (e.g. Tokina $480 vs. Sigma $500). Here is the UK the Tokina is less easy to find, and costs more too. For example 290 pounds for the Sigma and 400 for the Tokina (i.e. about $580 Sigma vs. $800 Tokina).
For me in the UK at least that makes the Sigma significantly more attractive...
splidge
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 09:14:53 AM · #12 |
| Like I said, I've seen some of the pictures owners have. What I wonder is, do the owners end up cropping out that 2mm because of distortion etc? I would love to see a side by side comparison of the EXACT same shot. I wish I could borrow both for the weekend. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 01:41:31 PM · #13 |
I have the Sigma 10-20 and I'm really happy with it. I had the Sigma 12-24 previously and was not happy with it at all.
Chromatic aberrations are not really an issue with either lens. That can always be an issue in low light though, and it's even worse at high ISO.
When I got ready to buy the 10-20 lens, it was a tossup between the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22. The Sigma won because it will work on my 10d and 20d. The Canon lens will only work on the 20d because it's the EF-S format. That was one of the major deciding factors for me when I made the purchase.
I shot this photo with the Sigma.. it's not cropped any from the original... just resized...
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 13:48:45.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 02:14:21 PM · #14 |
my camera was built by computer game designers (using plans of good old Minolta engineers though) and Tokina has never been an option, but
i love my 10-20! i'd spend the extra x100 bucks on travel.
make sure you post some examples.. either way. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 10:12:38 AM · #15 |
I have the Sigma 10-20 for my 350D. Just ordered a 5D and a Sigma 12-24 for it. I went for the Sigma again because I was so impressed with the 10-20. it took me a while to find the best apeture (F11).
Superb build quality.
Also Photography Monthly (UK) recently did a test of about 6 or 7 super wide angle lenses and the sigma 10-20 came out on top.
Will post my findings and samples of the 12-24 when it arrives. |
|
|
|
04/26/2007 11:56:56 AM · #16 |
Sigma 10-20mm. You know you want one ;)
|
|
|
|
04/26/2007 11:59:34 AM · #17 |
stop it stop it .. my wallet won't forgive you ...
|
|
|
|
04/26/2007 12:34:52 PM · #18 |
| You might want to consider the new Tokina 10-17mm. I played with one a bit a few weeks ago and it seemed to have a solid build to it. I've noticed it's getting good reviews too. |
|
|
|
04/26/2007 12:50:07 PM · #19 |
another sigma 10-20 review here.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2007 08:58:37 AM · #20 |
just ordered one ... damn it's a good thing it's pay week
spouse didn't say no
(didn't say yes either , just got that glazed eye look when ever i talk about photography)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2007 09:23:20 AM · #21 |
I kept saving and went to the Nikkor 12-24mm. An astounding lens. I have 2 Nikkor lenses now - and I'm a huge fan.
So much faster at focus than my 3rd party lenses, and they are tough! Been rattling around in my saddlebags for over a year now and the focus and zoom rings are still tight and smooth. My Tamron that I bought at the same time (great photo quality) feels "loose" after the same treatment.
There's a reason the Nikkor are twice as expensive and still in business. I'm glad I kept saving.
Message edited by author 2007-04-27 09:50:55. |
|
|
|
04/27/2007 09:30:04 AM · #22 |
I didn't go the nikon route because i have the 17-55 so it was too much overlap
i would have considered the 12-24 if i had the 28-70 (which i'm stll lusting after ..)
i use the 10.5 a great deal but want the rectilinear view ...
though i am considering selling my sigma 15-30 ...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 02:34:40 PM EDT.
