Nikon 12-24 or Sigma 10-20

[arun_seetharam]

I have been using the Nikon 12-24 for some time now. This lens is not too good in the 12-14mm range. Pretty

pronounced distortion. And it is great beyond 15, no doubt. This is no news to you all. But for a while I have

been watching the performance of Sigma 10-20. The pictures look fabulous across the board on many galleries. Many

awards too for this lens. The performance at the wide end seems really better than the 12-24. Build quality of

10-20 seems to be great too, For the price on this lens, it seems a closed-eyes buy. I am almost thinking of

selling the 12-24, buy the 10-20, add some money and buy another spare camera, may be. The extra (good) 4mm

would be lovely.

 

What are your thoughts on this? 10-20 or 12-24? I looked at the boards, nobody has talked about this

choice specifically. It would be great to hear from you folks.

 

Thank You.

[Matt Laur]

Well, if you dig around, you will indeed find lots of discussion comparing the two. Let's be clear: the Sigma is not perfect - but neither is the Nikon. It's the compromise-per-dollar ratio that really merits discussion. I've lately been seeing what I can do to find real-world uses for the Sigma that make me NOT like that lens. It's actually pretty difficult.

<br><br>

Just the other day I was using it in a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7563324"><b>really challenging room full of straight lines</b></a>, and found myself just as happy with it there as I am when using it for <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7468952&size=lg"><b>somewhat more exotic shots</b></a>, or <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7512175&size=lg"><b>landscape-ish stuff</b></a>, or the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6703905&size=lg"><b>the cityscape-ish stuff</b></a> that you might normally expect to use it on. Used <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6890455&size=lg"><b>with care at 10mm</b></a>, it's really quite a workable lens, at that extra 2mm below 12mm <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6668904&size=lg"><b>really can be put to practical use</b></a>.

<br><br>

That being said, I'd sure like the consistent f/4 that the Nikon offers... but most of the time I reach for the 10-20, it's because I want to use it closer to the wide (and thus faster) end anyway. It's hard to say if you'd get enough for the 12-24, minus the cost of a new lens, to take too much of a bite out of the cost of yet another piece of equipment. Another camera body might be calling to you, but you might also want to think about a fast wider prime.

<br><br>

One more note: don't forget that the distortion a lot of people really have trouble with at the widest end of all of these lenses is actually just the natural impact of seriously enhanced perspective. That's not distortion, per se, just the laws of physics getting in your way. It can be very challenging, down near 10mm or 12mm, to get your camera well squared up the subject matter in the interests of preventing perspective problems. Sometimes, absent a ladder or other way to keep things linear, you're still in for some keystoning correction in post production, regardless.

[ShunCheung]

Do a quick search and you should find a lot of previous discussion on this or at least similar issues:

http://www.photo.net/search/?sitesearch=Photo.net&client=pub-1734703147688622&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23CCCCCC%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3ADDDDDD%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A45%3BLW%3A225%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.photo.net%2Fv2graphics%2Flogo.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo.net%2F%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en&qx=nikon+sigma+10-20&q=nikon+sigma+10-20&section=all&x=23&y=6#1365

[Two23]

The Sigma 10-20mm is very good, but I've just retired it and will be selling it shortly. The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is the best lens in this class, period. No contest. I have been using one for the past two weeks now and have been stunned by how good it is.

 

Kent in CA

[Matt Laur]

I thought about mentioning the Tokina, but I don't know if you could even cover the cost of it, now, with the proceeds from selling the Nikon 12-14. If Arun's purpose is to recover some of the value of his current 12-24 and put it to other uses, that makes this a little more complicated than pointing to the Tokina (though I must say, that lens is nagging at me, Kent!).

[arun_seetharam]

Yea.....Tokina 11-16 is kinda expensive for this switch. Matt, Wow!! Fabulous pictures......your Italy trip pics with 10-20 were great too.....which strengthened my want to switch.

[michaelbrochstein]

I used the Nikon 12-24 for a few years and then sold it late last summer to buy the Sigma 10-20. I do not at all regret that decision. If you do buy the Sigma then I suggest you buy a Nikon 77mm Front Lens Cap and a Nikon Rear Lens Cap as they are noticeably superior to the ones supplied with the Sigma (much more so in the case of the front lens cap).

[Peter_in_PA]

+1 on the Tokina 11-16, unless of course you think you might want the "longer" range the other lenses offer.

[Jim_Tardio]

The bad thing about the Sigma is that it's a horrible f:5.6 at 20mm.

[richard_driscoll]

I just noticed that www.photozone.de have just recently (last 4 days) done an update to the Sigma 10-20 review. It looks pretty good now so there may be some sample variation. While it is slow at the long end the quality at the f/5.6 max. does at least look fully usable.

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review

 

Seem to recall last time I looked it didn't look so good. Maybe this was the earlier sample.

[graham_marsden]

I think that pound for pound, or dollar for dollar ( for you guys) - The Sigma wins. Before buying mine, a friend lent me his Nikoor 12-24mm to see how I got on with wide-angle. I prefer the Sigma.

 

In my opinion, it's crisp throughout its range and the aperture limitations are understandable at that price-tag. Distortion at the edges is CS3-able, as is a touch of vignetting.

 

The only way to avoid distortion completely is to go back to plate cameras and tip and tilt lenses. My graphic designer son-in-law says his Hasselblad 903swc with 38 mm Carl Zeiss Biogon lens gives a 90 degree view with no distortion at all - but mortgages are tricky these days ?

.

[photo5]

The Tokina 11-16mm is on my list. The worst thing about it is, you can't find it!! I'm waiting for B&H to get it in stock so I can bring it with me to London this fall. My Tokina 12-24mm was sharp and very well built, no complaints at all. But getting f2.8 will be fabulous and being wider is what I want as well. I've also looked at the Sigma but it is far too slow for me at the 20mm end, f5.6 just doesn't cut it.