Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24 + Nikon 10.5 fisheye

[colda]

I'm about to order a wide angle lens but am really confused as to which way to jump.

 

On one hand I can go with the Sigma 10-20 which will do most of what I want

(occasional interior shots, landscapes and some 'on stage' stuff).

 

On the other hand I can choose the Tokina 12-24 with a view to getting a Nikon

10.5 fisheye at a later date.

 

I feel that the Tokina + Nikon is the more 'pro' route but of course it's a

considerable investment for someone that spends most of his life at 85mm. I

recently got a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 which I love and have a Sigma 100-300 f4 on

it's way, so there is no particular preference to brands, although I do prefer

to have a constant aperture on a zoom lens.

 

I also have a Zenitar 16mm fisheye that lives on a F801s body, I've never been

really happy using this lens on digital as I feel that there should either be

distortion of there shouldn't - although I'm am considering giving this another

go and using PTlens or similar to defish.

 

I suppose the sensible choice would be the Sigma for that extra 2mm (and

forgetting about the 10.5) but I fear that this will fall short in too many

areas and I'll end up selling it to get the Tokina at a later date. The CA on

the Tokina is a concern but 90% of it's use will be 'on stage' and interior.

 

Also, I shoot in jpeg 90% of the time (I prefer to spend my time behind a camera

rather than in front of a computer).

 

I'm waffling and going rather mad in the process of choosing - can anyone help me?

 

Cheers

 

 

Darren

[photo5]

I love my Tokina 12-24mm on my D70s. It is an effective 18-35mm lens. That I can go out to 35mm semi normal angle is super, and zoom way out to 18mm super wide angle. I never feel I need more than 18mm wide angle really. Plus the build quality of the Tokina 12-24 is excellent, probably as good or better than the Nikon 12-24mm at twice the price. Some on this forum will tell you to get the Nikon (around $1000) but I say it's a waste of money as long as the Tokina is here at $500.

 

Dave

[melresnick]

Kid in the candy store syndrome.

 

I have the Sigma 10-20 and am very happy with it. The extra two millimeters really do make a difference. Of course I would prefer a constant aperture lens, but the Sigma is quite compact for what it does and I like to walk around with it for shooting on the street. Also, it doesn't block the on-camera flash (Maxxum 7D) if I take the hood off.

 

Your question adds the decision to go for rectilinear or fisheye, which means you'll need to make a choice that has nothing to do with the lenses themselves. For what you said is most of what you want to do (occasional interior shots, landscapes and some 'on stage' stuff), how important is a fisheye?

[klix]

I'm curious - why would you get the 10.5mm fisheye with the Tokina, but not with the Sigma? If you need a fisheye, get a fisheye. But if you are getting a fisheye with a view toward correcting the perspective in Photoshop, then you might as well get a rectilinear lens to begin with.

 

If it boils down to the Sigma vs. the Tokina, get the Sigma for the extra 2mm or get the Tokina for the reportedly sharper performance.

 

I have the Sigma (I wanted the extra 2mm) and I've been happy with it.

 

KL<div></div>

[Jerry_]

For what it is worth: the 10.5mm Nikkor is wider than the Sigma 10-20mm lens. [i have both and at 10mm, the Sigma is not quite as wide as the Nikkor DX fisheye.]

 

 

 

Plan on using a tripod if you want level horizons....

[Greg M]

They are worth it- you'll see subjects you've already shot in a different way. You'll take pictures that, in many cases, are unique. You'll never regret going too wide, but you might regret not.<div></div>

[colda]

Many thanks for the responses so far!

 

It is indeed a case of a kid in a sweet shop, problem is that the funds (from selling off a load of old stuff) is fast running out :(

 

I think that my mind was going down the route of 'if I have the extra 2mm can I get away without using a fisheye'.

 

Logically, 10.5 (fisheye), 12-24 and 28-80 looks more complimentary than 10-20 and 28-80.

 

The question then becomes, do I need the fisheye?

 

If it's a case that I'm not going to need a fisheye in the future (I go through phases of liking and disliking the fisheye effect) then the range of the Sigma becomes very attractive.

 

Arrrgghhhh!! - still confused - I feel that if I get the Tokina then I'll want the fisheye for the extra width but if get the Sigma and then find I need the fisheye I fear that I'll be well miffed with myself for not getting the Tokina.

 

I do like the idea that if I choose the Sigma then I can used the saving on the fisheye to get more studio kit :)

 

Does anyone know what the comparitive angles of view are at 10mm and 12mm on a 1.5x crop sensor?

 

Cheers

 

 

Darren

[Greg M]

Those "phases" you talk about regarding fisheye lenses is not uncommon. Fisheye lenses can be fun, but unlike more correct superwides, the subjects that work well with a fisheye are very limited. If you want a lens you can use under a wider range of conditions or subjects, get a superwide lens like the Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24. If you've got money to burn, get a fisheye as a fun lens to use every once and a while after getting the zoom. Otherwise, they tend to sit in the bag more than on your camera after a few weeks or months.

 

Here's a good article regarding the various superwides for your Nikon:

 

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/super-wide_shootout_3.html

[klix]

On a DSLR with a 1.5x crop, the angles of view are as follows:

 

10mm = 100.4 deg horizontal, 77.3 deg vert

 

12mm = 90 deg hor, 67.1 deg vert

 

 

Trust me, the extra 2mm is a HUGE difference.

[colda]

Many, many thanks everyone for helping me out with this

 

I've decided to go with the Sigma 10-20

 

Thanks again :)