Sigma 15-30mm versus Tokina/Nikon 12-24mm

Has anyone here used the Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 DG EX as well as either of the

Nikon/Tokina 12-24mm's on a D200?

 

I'm still undecided whether to purchace the Nikon or the Tokina. I'm using the

Sigma at the moment but it's a huge lens and prone to flare. However it is very

sharp.

 

I mostly use my lenses for photojournaism and the prime range I used most often

was the 24mm and 35mm lenses. I shoot for magazines and photolibraries and am

at the moment leaning towards the Nikon.

 

I can't view a Tokina because no store in my area stocks them. I can buy new

from an online auction site but am a bit worried about sample variation (with

the Tokina).

 

I've read nearly every review imaginable on the Nikon and Tokina but am stil

tearing out what little hair I have left out making the decision. They both

have their pro's and con's. Where I live (New Zealand) I can purchace the Nikon

for about NZ$1600 and the Tokina for around NZ$760.

 

How does the Tokina compare to the Sigma? If I have a benchmark between the two

I can make a better decision since I can't try out a Tokina.

 

I am thinking more of the 12-24mm range rather than the 17-55 because I can use

my 50mm f1.8 AFD and 180 f2.8 AF to cover the rest.

 

Thanks everyone

Have you considered Sigma's 10-20mm HSM? It's in the same price range as Tokina's 12-24, but you get 2mm wider (which can be very helpful). That lens has a lot of happy owners (including me).

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and it is excellent. I use it daily.

 

 

Kent in SD

I have thought about the Sigma 10-20 but I don't realy need it that wide and also the f5.6 is a bit too slow at the long end.

 

My ideal lens would be a 24mm AFD but I've tried that and have found it to be less than ideal on the D200. The 24mm would give me close to my ideal 35mm focal length(film equivalent).

 

One reason I have been leaning more to the Nikon 12-24 is because it is supposed to be better than the Tokina at the 24mm length.

 

The other option is the Nikon 17-55mm of course wich is meant to be a stunner at all focal lengths.

 

The Sigma 15-30mm can be a pain because of the huge size of its front lens which makes filter use a pain in the proverbial too!

I had the Tokina 12-24mm and if is not Nikon for me is TOKINA.

 

Awesome lens, sharp, fast AF and the built quality of the Tokina ATX pro series is as good as it gets.

You are aware that Nikon is releasing a 14-24mm f2.8. Not sure you'd be interested in it considering you are asking about an older Sigma 15-30mm which costs a fraction of the newest Nikon. I am an ultrawide fanatic, and when I need the speed I use my Nikon 20mm f2.8. I photo moving trains at night for a magazine.

 

 

Kent in SD

I have the Tokina and I am very happy with it on my D200. I don't work for newspapers anymore but still shoot some PR work that is handed out for newspapers and magazines so it's basically the same thing. When you're in close quarters -- squished up front at a news conference or speech, working a packed room full of people etc. -- it's essential. It's tack sharp, focuses fast and has no flair issues. If I were still shooting professionally every day I would probably have bought the Nikon just because virutally all of my lenses over the past 30 years are Nikon. But at $500 for the Tokina and $1000 (U.S.) for the Nikon, there was no hesitating to go with the Tokina. I tried both and short of doing actual testing could not see a difference in optical quality or handling. The Tokina has the black crinkle finish that is very similar to the Nikon and feels very solid, with high build quality. As for the Sigma 15-30, that really turns into a 22.5-45, which is not nearly as wide as the Tokina's 18-36 equivalent, so I don't think they're an apple to apple comparison. Only thing I don't like is it being an f/4 -- too dim to manually focus in a dim room -- but I'm generally shooting flash and autofocus so it's not been a problem.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

 

Craig: I'm using the Sigma 15-30 at the moment so know it's sharp but will be getting the Tokina or Nikon.

 

I use the 20mm F2.8 as a people/documentary lens for much of my work. It "sort of" takes the place of my beloved 24/35mm prime combinations. But I find I have to use it at f5.6 to get really sharp results.

 

Kent: I have thought about the new Nikon 14-24mm but it's too large for me. And I also think that the price for it here in NZ is going to be about half the price of a new D3!

 

If I went the D3 way I'd just put a 35mm f2 on it and be a happy camper!

 

Also I find that f2.8 now is not so important to me know after changing from film to digital. Before I used Velvia and Provia 100 so needed f2 and 2.8. Now I can use the D200 @ 400ASA and easily get results as good as Provia.

 

I use AF most of the time now too because of the small D200 viewfinder (compared with my old FM2's).

Craig; The sort of PJ work I'm doing is editorial so am doing very little newspaper work. My work is mostly documentary PJ for mags and photo libraries.

 

Most of it is done close up & used to be done with 2 primes (a 35mm f2 and 24mm f2.8 and very occassionally a 50mm f1.4 for low light).

 

I could actually do 80% of my work with a 35mm. On my last trip overseas I used the 20mm AF for nearly every image. (All close quater work in Vanuatu squatter settlements)

Did you read this comparison?

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

 

Ken is wacky sometimes in some people's opinions, but this particular test is really good.

Bottom line, he says to buy the NIkon, if you can't afford it, buy the Tokina, otherwise skip

the others. I haven't bought yet but am leaning toward the Tokina because a.) I can't afford

the Nikon and b.) I tried the Tamron and it handled and focused HORRIBLY and c.) I tried the

Sigma and was less than impressed.

Peter: I think I've read that review about 50 times but I'm even more uncertain now! They both have pro's and con's, which I suppose means I'm really nitpicking! :-)