Nikon wide angle zoom vs. Sigma/Tokina - worth the price?

[mick_wachtel]

This seems to be a popular question and the more I read the more indecisive I become! Only having

recently come over the wall to digital (I was one of the last vinyl holds outs as well) I have realized that an

18mm lens in the digital world is not the same as an 18mm lens in the film world and the kit lens (18-70)

that came with my D70 is not doing the job for me. I have read a lot about CA, vignetting, and distortion

with all these lenses and am having trouble pulling the trigger on which going to be the best for me (i

shoot mostly landscapes, indoor/outdoor architectural photography, candids on wide fields - not sure

what that's called but think stanley kubrick).

 

I am not opposed to third party lenses. My Sigma 100-300 f/4 and Tokina 20-35 f/2.8, the heavyweights

in my film bag, served me very well. I recently puchased a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR instead of the

70-200mm f/2.8 VR on price (and the extra zoom) and think that might have been a mistake. Any

thoughts from owners of any of these lenses, briefly highlighting the +/-, whether the Nikon is worth the

cost or will be equally happy with the half priced Sigma or Tokina would be much appreciated.

[Peter_in_PA]

I am also trying to figure out what to do in this regard. You should read Ken Rockwell's

excellent comparison of these lenses. This is one of those articles he's written that is very

useful.

 

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

 

If you are the kind of photographer who thinks that buying the 70-300 instead of the 70-200

VR was a mistake, you may be the kind of photographer who will want only the Nikon. I

handled one... It's FABULOUS in its ergonomics. I want one... can't afford it.

[mick_wachtel]

Thanks Peter - I like reading Ken's stuff. And don't get me wrong, I like the 70-300.

Everyone else thinks (including Ken now!) that it's not a good value. Being new to digital I am

not all that confident with my decisions as I feel everyone seems to know so much more than

me. $550 seemed like good value for me compared with the $900 i paid for the Sigma

100-300mm - which I think is quality lens - especially with the VR. I thought I was getting a

deal! I am not sure I am not alone on that though.... Anyway, really this is about value and I

am tempted to go Tokina - on value. No sense in paying for a brand when I can get the same

quality for less under another name.

[work-page]

My first bird pictures with the 70-300VR weren't stellar too, but I soon found that it could be attributed to user error. The shallow DOF at 300mm requires much more thought in were to aim the AF sensors. What I became aware of, was that they're much wider than the marks in the viewfinder indicate, and can make the camera focus on something outside those marks.

 

As soon as I got that figured out, I became very fond of the 70-300VR. For me, it's a splendid lens. Ok, it's not as sharp as the 35-70/2.8 I have, but it's more than sharp enough to see a lot of detail..<div></div>

[erik_loza]

I always looked at purchasing lenses as an investment in myself. Take the 17-35mm as an example; I paid $1,000 for a used one in 2004. It is statistically my most-used lens. It does magazine ads for our company, pretty much all our website images, has been with me on countless trips into the desert, jungle, etc., and can't seem to take a bad picture.

 

If I were to turn around and sell it tomorrow, then I would get $1,000 for it. So, how much has it really cost to own a lens that never will disappoint? I don't know what third-party lenses go for new, but I do know what they go for used.

 

Owning the factory zoom won't cost me a cent, while I'd lose money on the third-party zoom in the end. That's how I make my decisions. Again, this may or may not be helpful for you. Best of luck in your search.

[tom_burke3]

Unfortunately comparisons of these lenses are hard to come by - not many people end up

with more than one of them! But for what it's worth I'm perfectly content with the Tokina

12-24. That said, it's not my principal lens by a long way.

 

I'm not convinced by the argument about resale values. When I buy something I want it to

last, so I'm not really interested in how much I might be able to sell it for. What I do know

is what it has actually cost me here & now. I chose the Tokina because no-one could

convince me that the equivalent Nikkor would be demonstrably better for the small

number of shots, at middling apertures, that I would use it for.

[eric friedemann]

I have the 12-24mm Nikkor on a D200 body pretty much all the time. I'm spoiled by the AF-S focus motor and would buy the DX Nikkor again despite the higher cost.

[simon_hickie1]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm. It would appear that I have a good one (look for posts about centering issues). Very sharp indeed and it's nice to have the extra couple of mm at the wide end. HSM focusing very reliable as well. Also seems to resist flare & ghosting particularly well - I shot deliberately into bright sunlight in order to provoke a negative response & I was delighted with the outcome.

[carl_johnson3]

The competitors sound quite good, though I've not used them. I do own the Nikon which is quite a good lens, but I'm not sure it's worth the premium. I suspect the total cost of ownership, for someone like me who's equipment gets dirty etc, for the Nikon and the 3rd party lenses is the same, except the 3rd party require a larger initial outlay of funds.

[klix]

I used to have the Sigma 10-20mm, and now have the Nikon 12-24mm. What you have to ask yourself are:

 

1) There is a noticeable difference between 10mm and 12mm. Will you be using the extra 2mm quite a bit? If YES, then get the Sigma.

 

2) If #1 = NO, is the Nikon within your budget? If YES, get the Nikon.

 

3) If #2 = NO, get the Tokina.

[hans_janssen]

Here http://82.176.160.70/sigma1020/index.html I have some test images of the Sigma 10-20. When you click on the thumbnail and then on the pic you get the full seized one.

[mvtol]

The tests on this site are well worth looking at imo (if you did not do it already):

 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4_nikon/index.htm

 

Verdict

The Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X DX is a lens with many facets. The resolution characteristic is very good to excellent throughout the zoom range which is quite surprising for an ultra-wide zoom lens - more so for a third-party lens. Vignetting is very high at 12mm f/4 but quite well controlled otherwise (for an ultra-wide lens). It produces a fair amount of wavy barrel distortions at 12mm, less so at 18mm and at 24mm distortions are negligible. The weakest spot are CAs which are very high at 12mm and 24mm. This may not be a significant problem for RAW photography because CAs are a correctable problem but for those preferring JPEGs the issue may be quite annoying at times.

Beyond CAs the lens doesn't really like contra light. Using the supplied hood is a good idea here and if possible light sources in the image field should be avoided. Typical for all Tokina AT-X lenses the build quality is on a very high level putting many lenses from other manufacturers to shame especially when considering the quite affordable price of around 450?/US$.

 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1224_4/index.htm

 

Verdict

The Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX proved to be a very good performer. Its center resolution figures are exceptionally high and apart from 12mm @ f/4 the border quality is also impressive though a little less field curvature may be desirable at 12mm. CAs as well as the distortion characteristic are very good for an ultra-wide zoom lens whereas vignetting is about average due to the reduced APS-C image circle. The build quality is, in principal, very fine but you would usually expect a little more from a lens in this price class. The primary competitor is probably the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro - a lens which is just as sharp but with a higher degree of CAs and worse flare in contra light - all at less than half the costs and combined with a better build quality. Costs aside it's a close race between the two with a slight edge for the Nikkor regarding optical quality. When taking the very different price tags in account the decision may be a little more complicated.

[andy_smothers]

Hard to respond. Your comment about the 18-70mm might be a little off-base. I can tell you professionally speaking that when 90% of my gear was stolen on a shoot in Treir/Reil/Stuttgart Germany (I made do with a 18-70mm "kit lens") - and this was double-page spreads for 2 German automakers. I can tell you regardless of what you might have read, that you can get great photos with nearly any lens, and your focus should be less on "which lens will make me the best photos" and how I can become a better photographer.

 

I firmly agree that most lenses are better than most photographers.

Sometimes you can really READ TOO MUCH. Bokeh, CA, vignetting, distortion, blah...blah....just get out there and practice. Ask Ansel how much CA he was getting with his lens-less pinhole camera.

Heck, he might have never got around to taking pictures at all, because his gear wasn't good enough. ;-) (at least according to Chuck Norris, I mean Ken Rockwell)

 

Enough ranting, my apologies:

120-300 f/2.8 Sigma - great lens. Better than your 100-300 f/4 due to better focusing and 1 stop faster. (trust me I have both) 70-300 f/5.6 is too slow. I wouldn't recommend anything more a f/2.8 on a medium-size tele zoom, since you can still add a 1.4TC in a pinch and have a little more reach. WA end, 10-20 and 12-24. Used em both, like the slightly wider Sigma 10-20mm even if a little slow.

 

Bottom-line: get the best you can afford (of course) but don't think that one lens will equate automatically to better photos, there is a little bit left to do with that with the person actually holding the camera.... ;-)

 

Best of luck,

Andy

[elliot1]

What you think is acceptable and what others think is acceptable may differ greatly.

 

If you can afford Nikon, buy Nikon. If you can't afford Nikon, make sure you buy your lens from a store that accepts returns. If you buy a third party lens and don't like it, you can return it. And then buy the Nikon.

 

I have at least one Nikon lens than almost everyone says is a piece of crap. I love it. It cost only $200 and gives results as good as the 'pro' lens I own costing 8 times as much (not as fast in aperture or focussing but outdoors it is a great performer.) A photo.net friend bought it and loves it too. He has a more critical eye than me. Opinions are just that. You need to try them out for yourself to see what you like. And make your own opinion.

[jalywol]

I tried the Tokina 12-24, and it had (for me) unacceptable flare and CA. I am thinking of trying the Sigma, since it has the least flare of any of the wide angle zooms.

 

However, Elliot has exactly the right opinion...you need to figure out what works for YOU, and all of the reviews in the world are not going to tell you that.

 

I happen to agree with him about the 18-55mm cheap Nikon kit zoom being a surprisingly nice lens. I have always disliked the 18-70mm that I have, also. However, most people in this forum feel the opposite. Still, these are the lenses that behave the best for me, never mind how they work for other people.

 

I would try out the lenses and see how you like them. If you can afford the Nikon 12-24mm, it has a lot of good things going for it. If you want to spend less, and do not do a lot of photography which could induce flair, try the Tokina. If you want the widest lends you can get in this class, try the Sigma.

 

Only you can decide which of them will work best for you.

 

-Janet

[mvtol]

You als may wnat to look at this article:

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

regards,

Martijn

[ray .]

What does CA stand for or mean?

[jalywol]

It stands for Chromatic Aberration. It appears as primarily purple fringing around the edges of objects.

 

-Janet

[ray .]

ah, thanks..