Nikon 10-24 VS: Sigma 10-20

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by joe_dempsey, Sep 17, 2009.

  1. I have been a Nikon man for a long time and generally prefer Nikon glass unless my budget forbids. Back before Nikon offered anything in the 10mm range, I bought a Sigma 10-20 and have been generally satisfied with the results. Now the Nippon brethren have thrust the Nikkor 10-24 on the market. Does anyone have any experience or information comparing these two lenses.
    Thanks,
    Joe
     
  2. And while you're comparing, make some brain space for Sigma's new 10-20 with the constant f/3.5. I'm looking forward to sorting them all out when there's more to go on.
     
  3. I am in the same boat Joe, Bought the Sigma about 2 years ago, not that there is anything wrong with it...I did not get a chance to play with Nikon 10-20, However Nikon quality should be much better...
     
  4. I borrowed a couple of Sigmas before investing in the new Nikkor (I have also owned the Nikkor 12-24 and the Tokina 11-16).

    My conclusion is that for my needs, the 10-24 Nikkor is the best. Going all the way to 24mm makes it slightly more versatile than the Sigma of course, but I also preferred the pics I took with the Nikkor. However if I already had the Sigma (like you do) I doubt I'd swap it for the Nikkor unless I really needed to go all the way to 24mm. And as Matt already pointed out, the new Sigma may be even better. I'd definitely wait for it before I bought the 10-24.

    I posted a little test I did of the 10-24 a while back. If you do a search in PN I'm sure it'll pop up. The majority of my wednesday pics are taken with the 10-24 and here are a couple more examples. No doubt the Sigma will probably perform much the same, although I have noticed the Nikkor is quite resistant to flare.
    00UW7h-173571584.jpg
     
  5. 2nd example
    00UW7i-173571684.jpg
     
  6. 100% crop from example 1
    00UW91-173587684.jpg
     
  7. I too bought the Nikon 10-24 after having owned the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20. The Nikon is very sharp across the zoom range, and handles flare well as can be seen in the above example. It is capable of professional results too.
     
  8. well I don't have any test shots but I'd go the other way. I Like Hamish shoot real estate to the amount of 500+ shots a day and found the nikon's barrel distortion a lot harder to correct in PS than the 10-20 all the way through. I also find that the sigma has little distortion at 12mm and over where the nikon showed through 16-17mm and most of my shots are 14mm and under. I guess it comes down to what you're using it for and what your work flow is.
    Ryan
     
  9. I've had the Sigma for a couple of years now, and what a fun little lens it is. Last weekend I took a demo Nikon 10-24 for a spin from my local store, expecting to see perhaps marginally improved sharpness/distortion/CA than the Sigma. What I actually found was a quite shocking softness in the corners at 10mm. From other's comments however, I gather that this is not typical, and thus suspect that the example I tested may have had some issues.
     
  10. See this posting and discussion with pictures. I too found the 10-24 Nikon's corners quite soft even stopped down, unlike some of the reviews and lens tests, so it could have been a bad sample.
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TUnj
    - John
     
  11. What I actually found was a quite shocking softness in the corners at 10mm​
    I have a 10-24, haven't played around with it much, but I can confirm that unbearable corners' softness at 10mm. Even stopping down will not completely resolve it. I shall do some more test this weekend.
    Many reviews that I've read mentioned this soft corners issue.
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    Both the Nikon 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX and 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX are weak on the wide end. The corners are not exactly soft but "mushy." I think they look a little smeared.
    I don't think it is a sample issue; some reviewers just don't check the corners that carefully.
     
  13. Yes, the corners smear, even nastier than simply being soft. You should definitely check sigma out.
     
  14. I have a D300. After an exhaustive exercise to be sure, I chose the Tokina ATX Pro11-16 2.8. Its the first non Nikon lens I ever bought and its astounding how sharp it is and how good the colours are.
    00UWx7-173995684.jpg
     
  15. For me it's the 10-24mm range I want. And the Sigma 10-20 has too slow an aperture at 20mm. The Tokina 11-16 is too narrow a range for me, I find I use 24mm quite often while the Nikon 10-24 is on the camera. Very useful. I'll accept a small amount of blurring at the corners for the versatility. No lens with such a wide zoom range is perfect at all focal lengths. Tokina was conservative with the 11-16 as was Sigma with the 10-20 giving it an f5.6 at the long end. I read about the Tamron 10-24 having severe issues so I didn't even consider spending another $250 on the Nikon as any problem. And best of all the color fidelity and contrast perfectly matches my Nikon 16-85.
     
  16. I also have Tokina 11-16, very satisfied.
    00UXR9-174275684.jpg
     
  17. The corners are not exactly soft but "mushy." I think they look a little smeared.​
    Yes. "Smeared" is definitely a better description of the phenomenon than soft. It's ugly, and if this is typical of this lens then I guess I'll be hanging onto my Sigma for a while longer :)
     
  18. I 've use the Nikon 10-24 since it first came out and find mine extremely sharp. I usually stop down for depth, and at the f8-16 I usually use, you can see the mesh in gratings in corners at 10mm as clearly and crisply as you'd like, even under 400% magnification. I've also used it wide-open at Hearst Castle for interiors and the shots came out splendidly. It has excellent auto-focus and overall ergonomics. I dismissed the 12-24 Nikon as simply not wide enough for me, it just lacks the drama. I also find the range to 36mm very useful, making this a great city walk-about lens.
    It seems about as crisp to me as my old 20/4 prime. Leica and Zeiss wideangles have better contrast and sense of immediacy, but the only better ultra-wide I've seen for SLR's is the Nikon 14-24 FX. A much larger more expensive lens that would require a body upgrade, a lot more money and the challenge of no filters.
     
  19. WOW that tokina looks very very good..I am testing the sigma now and very underempressed so far.. I am going to give it serveral more days of shooting and if it does not clear up...its in the box and back to amazon.
     

Share This Page