Replacement for Sigma 10 20mm - FX wide

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
12,653
Edit My Images
No
I moved to FX a few months ago for general photography ……. and I sold my DX Sigma 10 20mm wide which I really liked

I now need an FX wide zoom, and the obvious replacements are the (expensive) Nikons, the 12 24mm f2.8 and the 16 35mm f4…………….

Of these I would probably go for the 16 35mm because it is a little smaller and I'm not really into ultra wides

I really liked the Sigma, but they do not seem to do an FX wide

Can you guys comment and maybe also suggest any other alternatives
 
Last edited:
Sigma do a 12-24 full frame zoom, check out their website or Ryan Brenizers blog re a review
 
you need to use a funky holder(s) on FF ultrawides and large filters like 100mm up size
theres tokina ones too that are really good
 
16-35 would be the natural evolution onto full frame. Both Nikon and canon do the range. Nikon has a 14-24 f2.8 again it needs special filters.
 
BillN_33 said:
I really liked the Sigma, but they do not seem to do an FX wide
Click to expand...

005269 said:
Sigma do a 12-24 full frame zoom, check out their website or Ryan Brenizers blog re a review
Click to expand...

Yup. I used a Sigma 12-24mm on my 20D and 5D and I thought it was a very good lens, better than the Canon 10-22mm I previously owned.
 
I did exactly the same used the 10-20 for years but we found when we wanted to crop the images were a bit fuzzy (16MP ) so I changed to FX D800 and went through a Samyang 14mm (v good) a Sigma 12-24 found myself zooming in all the time and then to a Sigma 17-35 D very cheap but I find that great . The improvement in sharpness is very good . I think the problem is that it is easier to design a retrofocus 15 ish mm lens for FX than a retrofocus 10mm for DX .
 
there are two sigma 12-24mm options, version I and guess what...version II!
Possibly changing from my canon 17-40L I thought about the version I as the distortion is nearly non-existent. The vII is worse for this but otherwise improved from the technical reviews that I've seen.
It depends if you want cheap and occasional use, super sharpness throughout and to the edge, f/4, f/2.8 and how wide is wide!
if you were looking at canon and budget allowed I would be recommending the 16-35mm L.
 
For silly (almost stupid) wide, the Sigma 12-24 is pretty much as wide as you can go and the original version is very well corrected for pincushion and barrel distortions. Not easy to use grads or pols with it though but pols are a problem with ultrawides anyway (uneven polarisation across the sky) and grads can be bodged if necessary. Solid colours can be cut from gels then slipped into the holder behind the rear element (template in the box.) IIRC there are filter mounting systems available for the Nikkor 14-24.

If funds allow, rent a few options from Stewart (lensesforhire) and see which float your boat.
 
Thanks all

I reckon the Nikon 16 35mm is really as wide as I really want to go …. I need to get one for my Jan/Feb annual holiday
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks all

I reckon the Nikon 16 35mm is really as wide as I really want to go …. I need to get one for my Jan/Feb annual holiday
Click to expand...
Cracking lens. The VR is useful. But the lens is good albeit expensive. Love mine. And once on the body, tends to stay in a while.
 
tokina 16-24 or 17-35 are both worth a look at. If you can find them at the right price there defiantly up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top