Tired of waiting for Tokina 11-16mm so...

I was planning on buying the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 zoom, but I got tired of waiting. I've also been interested in

the Sigma 10-20mm and the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye. So...I bought both lenses today from B&H Photo, with the intent

on using both and deciding which one I will want to keep. I understand they are both very different lenses for

different purposes. I have the Nikon 16-85mm VR which I love, but there are times when I want to shoot wider, and

an impending trip to London next month motivates me to get a wider lens.

 

The Nikon 10.5mm is attractive as it is compact and will shoot interiors well. The Sigma is attractive as it will

not need correction. Anyone have both of these lenses and want to comment on your favorite? I did have the Tokina

12-24mm but sold it after buying the Nikon 16-85mm as I didn't think I would want to use it much after getting

the VR zoom.

Dave, you are a pretty experienced photographer so I would think you would get more use out of the Sigma. However, I don't have either of those lenses. Instead, I use the Tokina you used to have.

 

Yeah, the fisheye is pretty neat but with software today, you can replicate that effect a lot easier than turing a photo the other way around. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the fisheye, I would be looking to the Sigma to get to that great wide angle promised land. At the very least, it means a lot less work in post processing unless, again, you really love that fisheye effect.

Hi Dave! I wonder what the problem with Tokina in the US is (assuming you're from the states). I have never tried a fisheye

but I really don't think it is a lens to use everyday. Maybe that's why I had never been attracted to them. Uhmm! Now that I

think about it, I hadn't been attracted to ultra wide lenses either. I bought the 11-16 just because I had nothing better to do

:) but now I love it. let us know how it goes... Cheers! Rene'

 

PS. I might see you in London, I'll be wearing a Yankees hat! So if you see me say HI! :) I'm going on the 2nd!

I do not own neither 10-20 nor 16.5 but if you get a good copy of 11-16/2.8 you will love it.

 

- sergey

Ohhhh, I'm very interested in this thread as I'm currently looking to sell my 10-20 to fund the purchase of the 10.5

 

Reason for the change is partly due to my mid-range will be changing from a 24/2.8 + 35-70.2.8 to a 17-55/2.8 and as I tend to use the 10-20 at the extremes, at 10 the distortions can be a bit of a git so I might as well go all the way with a fisheye and 20 will be covered by the 17-55. That said the 10-20 has proven to be a great lens!

 

Dave, please keep us posted of your experiences and enjoy London! - I work there (Hammersmith) and can't stand the place, but there again I'm a country boy :)

I used the Sigma 10-20mm for about a year & half, then bought the Tokina 11-16mm in June. The Sigma is for sale.

 

 

Kent in SD

Dave, I own both lenses you are interested in and like 'em both ! Fisheye 10.5 mm I tend to use very seldom but I do like the effect .It is quite costly considering that it is NOT everyday use lens for most people. Sigma 10-20mm I tend to use much more often , which is " normal" cause most of us like the wider end. This lens has also good reviews by the experts and casual photographers.I attached 2 samples for you to take a look: Sigma @ 10mm, and Nikkor fisheye 10.5 mm no flash, thanks-raf<div></div>

...and Fisheye 10.5 mm no flash-<div></div>

...Tokina has also one big advantage over Sigma though...f2.8--- which is nice to have if one wants to shot in low light, tiny room,(church, restaurant...etc.), handheld -- Sigma ,outdoors IMO,raf

You can shoot the sigma hand held indoors in low light, due to the fact that at 10mm you can get by with 1/10th of a second shutter speed. That said, there have been a few times that I would have appreciated the f2.8 of the Tokina, but overall I'm happy with my Sigma 10-20mm and I'm glad I have the extra on the wide and long end of the lens over the Tokina.

If you have people in you images, you rarely can shoot at 1/10 sec indoors. You can put your camera on the most sturdy tripod, but the problem is subject movement. Even though they are sitting, people tend to move a bit and you'll end up with blur people. I typically try not to shoot at any slower than 1/30 sec indoors.

 

My first DX lens was the 12-24 followed by the 17-55mm. I have the 10.5mm fisheye but that is a lens I use only occasionally. Unless you specialize in fisheye, I would highly recommend getting a wide zoom first e.g. 12-24, 11-16 or 10-20. The 10-20 is fine for outdoors such as landscape. For indoors, f2.8 or even faster still has its advantages.

Shun, in the old days they used 10 second exposures for portraits. This is why nobody smiled in the photos, because they had to hold their breath for 10 seconds!! <P>

 

Thanks for your replies, I will certainly post my initial impressions of both lenses. I had the Nikon fisheye for my Coolpix 990 and loved it. It could function as a circular fisheye as well as a full-frame fisheye (you just zoomed the camera lens in and out when it was mounted on the front). Granted the quality wasn't that great though.<P>

 

<center><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/8942225_M5oan-M.jpg"><P>

 

The Observation Bar on board retired 1930s Art Deco Cunard Ocean Liners RMS Queen Mary<br> Long Beach, California, Nikon Coolpix 990, 11-2003</center><P>

<I>Shun, in the old days they used 10 second exposures for portraits.</I>

<P>

Dave, I wonder what your point is?

What I don't understand is why you would purchase a lens with the intention of returning it after testing. It can't

be resold. Have you thought about the consequences of your actions on the environment and natural resources of

the planet?

Ilkka, I wonder what your point is?

I know what Ilkka's point is, but that is off topic.

Well I'll explain then. I bought both lenses because I wanted to try them out. I've used both types (fisheye and extreme wide angle) and I couldn't decide which kind I wanted to take to London. The attraction of the fisheye is obvious, it can capture the inside of a building like no other lens in a single photo. The attraction of the extreme wide angle is that it needs no post-processing to look normal.

 

I wouldn't think of returning a lens to B&H or anywhere unless there was a problem with it. I will put the lens I don't want up for sale as new at a small loss.

 

Shun, regarding my comment on people in long exposures, my point was that there was a time when it was indeed the norm. Nowadays I like to take long exposures with people in them to show movement. In fact if you leave the shutter open long enough, the people moving will disappear anyway.

sorry to sully your thought process dave but have you taken a look at the tokina 10-17 fisheye?

with that, you get the advantages of a fisheye and a wide zoom all in one, with the ability to vary the perspective. and you can defish it in post-, whereas you can't fishify a zoom. that makes it more versatile than a traditional fixed focal fish.

Dave, I guess you are saying you feel that the fisheye will get lots of use, even compared to the wide angle. Fine, make it easier on yourself and just take both to London. Yeah, it's a little more bulk but it certainly will take care of the 'which one' issue and you won't have to second guess yourself overseas. Since you're going to sell one anway, enjoy both of them for a little while.

Wow. I'm so glad I got one of those 11-16s the second they hit. I didn't realize they'd be harder to find than an 18-200 was

in the beginning.

 

I like Eric's idea of the 10-17 fisheye for you, Dave. Considered it?

I just got mine after a 1.5 month wait. I had called Tokina USA before I placed my order and asked where was the best chance of getting one. They said try my local Samys or else got to the biggest US seller of Tokinas. No bueno at Samys for a week. I then lined up with Adorama, who sells the most Tokinas in the US, for a backorder, and it still took 1.5 months.

 

Got mine on Monday. I think I love eeeet!

 

/bing

Eric, I did consider the Tokina, but I found that it is always a fisheye lens, it doesn't have any rectilinear mode. Plus the Nikon 10.5mm DX is said to be an excellent "prime" fisheye, f2.8, and can be "fixed" (for the most part) in Capture NX if necessary. So that is intriguing.

 

Bruce, yeah I could take both to London, but I'm trying to travel light (see Rick Steves), so the 16-85mm VR will be my primary lens, the 10.5mm or the Sigma 10-20mm would be my wide-angle, and the little Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D my backup lens. But they may both come with me, that is a distinct possibility! After the trip, yeah, one may get booted out the door at some point. Yes, I don't want to end up walking around London wishing I had chosen the other wide-angle!! I do plan to do a lot of photographing of buildings inside and out so the wide-angles seemed a good idea, and sometime I do like to get a super-wide look at the inside of a cathedral, church, pub, or train or tube station, so the fisheye would be fun.

 

Peter, lucky to have one! I realize I could spend $100 more and get one on ebay, but I want to buy one with a USA warranty, and most of the ebay lenses are foreign. Plus the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is probably heavier than the Sigma anyway. Who knows I may sell the Sigma when the Tokina becomes available!

I was thinking Tokina 10-17 FE zoom as well.I can't imagine using a 10.5mm fisheye for general-purpose wide-angle

use, even if you can de-fish it in software, if for no other reason than the difficulty in composing through the

viewfinder. Fortunately these lenses are relatively compact and light so you can also bring your rectillinear

ultrawide. If budget permits, you may find yourself wanting to keep both.

I have only used Nikon Capture NX to "de-fish" the 10.5mm DX, and Bjorn Rorslett has described that feature in NX poor. But my experience with de-fish is a very bad one. When you de-fish, you are throwing away a lot pixels around the edges and you are also stretching a lot of pixels. As a result, the center of the frame is fine but the edges are extremely poor.

 

If you want a super wide, buy a super wide. I wouldn't depend on de-fishing a fisheye to get the super-wide effect.

I have enjoyed my 10-20mm Sigma for the last year and been able to capture some incredibly good shots. Good build, very sharp --- especially when stepped down. I have used the Tokina in question and found the incredibly poor plastic build quality of the Tokina 11-18 to be a serious drag. The Sigma, IMHO has far superior edge sharpness. Would give the Sigma 10-20mm an overall rating of 8/10

 

HTH,

Andy