which do you suggest 10-20mm sigma or tokina 12-24 ?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by anthony_wright, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. Hello All. I just went out with my photo group to the cloisters in nyc. One
    of the members had a simga 10-20mm which sparked my interest. I did some
    looking but wonder if anyone had any current info or opinions on these lenses.
    I would be willing to get one soon as i'm really secretly waiting and saving
    for the new 14-24 2.8(from the wife) I believe, but that would be much further
    down the line(9mths-1.2yrs). I would generally want to use it for scenics like
    centeral park camping etc.. and would the 2mm really make a diff If I were to
    go with the tokina. and which one has less barrel distortion etc
    Thanks in advance for any help and or information
  2. Sorry, but are both of these lens only made for digital. I'm not sure but I believe the tokina is.
  3. Both lenses are reviewed here. 2mm in this range is pretty significant.

  4. Yes the Sigma is made for digital - http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm

    I have this lens and can't recommend it highly enough! distortions are absolutely minimal for an ultra-wide zoom, and unless you are doing critical architectural work would be unnoticeable in normal use.

    If you search the previous posts here I think you will be hard pressed to find any real criticism of the Sigma - I recall someone posting some good interior (real estate type) shots a few weeks back.

    Oh and yes - the difference between 10mm and 12mm is very noticeable indeed - the difference between 10mm and 14mm is a 'country mile'!

    For the price/quality/range the Sigma 10-20mm can't be beaten IMHO.
  5. Here are a few indoor shots I took when I recently got that lens.
  6. Wow Todd, those pics look great!!! i just wanted to ask are those pics taken with available light and what body did you use if you dont mind me asking. Judging by what I've seen, I think I'm really looking at that sigma thanks all for the quick response. Also, thanks I didnt know that 2mm would make such a big diff. I guess with the 10mm I could also get some great shots of the upcoming real estate around the city
  7. I bought the Tokina and traded it in for the Sigma. The 2mm is a hugh amount at that "wideness". I did not love the balance of the Tokina on my D200 and it would not work on my later purchase of a D40x. I was never crazy about the feel of the Tokina either. All in all, I'm glad I got rid of it.
    Shooting wide, the f4 vs 5.6 never came into play. Any distortions can be fixed, if you need to, in PS or most other programs. I took the Sigma to Maine for landscape shots in Acadia and did not need to correct any images for distortion.
  8. I have the sigma 10-20mm and it is a good lens for the price you paid. Distortions, if well used, are minimal, and 2mm in this wide lands are enough to consider.

  9. Anthony,

    Yes, available light. It was a furniture store grand opening and I didn't feel comfortable setting up lights when wine was being served;-)

    I used a Nikon D200 that night with a Bogen tripod. The rest of the shots can be viewed here:


    The close-up shots were done with the same body, but the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro HSM and bouncing the flash from an SB-800.
  10. I like my Tokina 12-24 on my D2x, and at f4 I only wish it was a faster lens. After reviewing
    my images for a month after my purchase of the Tokina, I noticed everything I shot was
    ultra-wide. It was a passing phase, and it occurred to me that ultra-wide is a tool, a
    technique, to have in the bag, but not really the way I see life all the time. Most of what I
    shoot with this lens is at 24mm, which is about 35mm equivalent on a film camera. At that
    focal length, f5.6 is awfully slow...
  11. A decent lens with simple distortion that can be fixed easily. 10mm is so wide you can stand in one corner of a room and almost take it all in. Now it depends on how much use you have for the lens. Keep in mind as the horizon is stretched, everything tends to get small in the photo.
  12. You wouldn't be making a mistake by buying either of these two lenses.

    I chose the Tokina 12-24 over the Sigma 10-20 due to its speed and it has worked out well for me. A buddy has the Sigma and, under similar conditions, the images made with each are pretty hard to tell apart. I think that the Tokina is a bit sharper at higher magnifications, but not enough to force the issue unless one prints large.

    The Sigma is lighter than the Tokina but I think the Tokina is built better. Not that the average amateur is likely to wear out either one.

    My buddy chose the Sigma due to it having HSM (he shoots with a D40) which made do difference to me. I don't find focusing speed much of an issue in this range anyway. With my D80, the Tokina focuses fast enough for my needs.

    Of course, the extra 2mm of the Sigma would make it preferable if you need the extra width. There are times I wouldn't mind having it but I have no complaints about the Tokina.
  13. On the Canon side, I found out that the Sigma 10-20mm is sold as digital body only, but I discovered that it did mount safely on my full-frame film cameras. It has noticeable vignetting at 10mm, but as you zoom out, it works fine on the full-frame format. I don't know what the mirror set up on the digital small-size sensors on the Nikons is, however, so caution would be advised. I wouldn't buy this lens for a full format camera, but I wouldn't get rid of it because I'd switched either.

    In any case, I've found this to be a really nice lens. It's very linear with little distortion from the grid except at the very edges where you would never notice it in real world settings.
  14. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    You can mount any Nikon DX lenses onto any Nikon 35mm film SLR or FX DSLRs and take pictures; except for the serious vignetting, there are no other problems. In fact, on the D3, there is the DX crop mode for DX lenses. The mirror on full or 1.3x frame DSLRs hitting the rear end of EF-S lenses is strictly a Canon feature.
  15. Love the Sigma. By the time I fell like reaching for an ultra-wide zoom, I find that the range between 10 and 12mm is frequently where I land. Here's a shot at 11mm, with only minimal distortion... but with a great ability to catch those foreground items at the same time I'm getting the wider space. I'm using that lens, near 10mm, much, much more often than I ever would have guessed.
  16. If you absolutely MUST have 10mm, then there is no other game in town. And yes, 2mm at that ultra wide end does make a big difference.

    I used to have the Sigma 10mm, and unlike the others who have posted here, I hated the cartoonish barrel distortion (most of which, but not all, could be fixed in PS). Look at the corners of the images posted on this thread -- you can plainly see the distortion, while the interior shots adds a feeling of claustrophobia.

    If you are secretly waiting for the 14-24mm, and are looking at the Sigme or Tokina as a stop gap, then I would suggest that you DON'T REALLY need 10mm.

    BTW, I now shoot with the Nikon 12-24mm, which is just in a different league.

  17. hi, i have the tokina. it's an excellent lens for the price. it balances nicely with a D80. the build quality is really superb, and it's capable of producing images wider than the eye can see. stopped down to f/5.6-f/8 it's outstanding. for me, the extra 2mm on the wide end is not something i'mmissing -- in real-world use, i rarely feel like 12mm isn't wide enough, and often use the 24mm end. i don't recommend shooting into the sun, but it's great for landscapes. i've heard good things about the sigma, but i don't regret not having it.
  18. thanks all. I'm looking at both but really leaning towards the sigma
    thxs again
  19. My son has the Sigma - looks like they have come a long way w/R&D - Great lens for these situations when one needs a wide lens.
  20. Love the Tokina in all aspects (and it is more than wide enough, for me the extra 2mm did NOT make that big a difference). Sigma may be what you want but the Tokina is a great lens and choosing either is a sound decision.
  21. As another in the market I've read up a bit, here are some relevant links for you:
    Ken Rockwell has a reasonable review of these two lenses + Nikon and Tamoron similar offerings at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
    I just noticed that Thom Hogan has promised a Sigma 10-20 review soon too...(eagerly anticipating that one, am I...) http://www.bythom.com
    And finally, Bjørn Rørslett doesn't have flattering things to say about using the Nikon 14mm f2.8 on digital cameras...worth a read for sure! http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html
    My own reading has me strongly leaning toward the Sigma.
  22. I've been using the Sigma 10-20mm on my D80 almost daily since last December. I really like the lens. It has held up very well despite the tough conditions it goes through outdoors here. Image quality is great, and I do use the extra 2mm over the Tokina 12-14mm. Highly recommend.

    Kent in SD
  23. Have you thought about getting the sigma 12-24. Then you can use it on film and FX frame and get even wider. That the equivalent of 8mm DX! Regards
  25. One of the key things mentioned here is that the Sigma, with "distortion handled well"...

    I find that if you crop in tighter, so that people fill the frame, you get mad distortion. Go vertical and it's all wacky.

    As a landscape lens it's almost unbeatable. Just...majestic field of view (not that the picture itself is majestic :). But distortion can be tough if you're not careful.

    I actually own both now...or will when the Tokina shows up. But that way my wife and I can both shoot with wides at the same time, I guess.

  26. Allan, are you talking about actual distortion as a lens flaw (i.e., pincushion or barrel distortion)?

    It sounds like you are talking instead about the perspective display that is simply a part of all ultrawide lenses. That is often called 'distortion', but is not the same as the kind of distortion being talked about in the reviews.
  27. I have been very happy with my Sigma 10-20. I had the chance to test a Sigma 10-20 against the Nikon 12-24 last year, and the results were not conclusive in favor of either lens in terms of CA, IQ, sharpness, color, etc. at f/8 (which I consider to be a typical aperture for this type of lens where you want wide DoF). I would guess that the Nikon is better wide open. I bought the Sigma, and a I really appreciate the extra 2mm. I virtually always use the lens at 10mm. Distortion is not significant for non-critical work. I personally prefer the handling to the Nikon. The HSM focusing works very effectively and quietly, and the focus and zoom rings are in the location that I find natural.


Share This Page