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

[anthony_wright]

dARREN THATS NOT SUCH A BAD IDEA. i STILL SHOOT FILM WITH MY N75 AND LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING A D100. NICE PIC ALSO THANKS

[kaiyen]

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.

 

allan

[JDMvW]

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.

[douglas_knisely]

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.

 

Doug