10-20mm versus 12-24mm. Help!

dougdarter

dougdarter

Messages
2,099
Name
Douglas
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I want to buy a uber wide angle lens for use on D2X/D300, and I'm more and more being seduced by the Tokina 12-24, not only because of price, but because of the ATX Pro build quality.

I really need to know what members have experienced with this lens, and it's direct competitor, the Sigma EX 10-20mm, as either are in the melting pot.

Are there any other alternatives (except the Nikon 12-24 which is too pricey) that I could consider?? I think I've covered all the options, but there may be something I have missed.

Is it worth paying the extra for the Sigma's extra 2mm at the wide end?

Finally, is anyone lucky enough to own lenses of both focal length, who could post pics of these lenses at both 10 and 12mm??

Thanks for your help.

Incidentally (and I'm probably breaking the rules here), I have a wanted ad up for either in NAF mount.:rules:
 
I've had the 10-20mm for two years now, it's my favourite lens for landscaping (y)
 
How about the tokina 11-16mm 2.8?..Supposed to be a fantastic lens.
 
I would second StuartH, I've not had any actual experience with any of these lenses although I've been meaning to get a wide angle for a while. As soon as I've saved my pennies I'll be getting the Tokina 11-16mm. Check out reviews of them all on photozone.de
 
I actually used to own both, I personally prefer the Tokina as the images seem to have more "oomph!" for want of a better word!

The difference between 10mm and 12mm is pretty noticeable, although I find the 24mm end of the 12-24mm much more useful than the 20mm of the Sigma.

Which brings me to suggest a lens that isn't out yet, but should be soon - the Tamron 10-24 which is due any day now. Tamron makes cracking lenses and it should be well up there and it'll solve the 10mm or 12mm dilimema nicely. I'd wait if you can.

If someone offered to buy me a Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24, I'd choose the Tokina though having shot several hundred with both lenses, optically its a bit sharper and seems more contrast-y.

I should also say that having shot w-i-d-e on a D700 with both a Nikkor 14-24 and a Nikkor 17-35 I would never buy a DX wide again, as the full frame Nikkor's wee all over the DX wides imho. So if you have any full frame plans, I'd say hold off.
 
puddleduck said:
Which brings me to suggest a lens that isn't out yet, but should be soon - the Tamron 10-24 which is due any day now. Tamron makes cracking lenses and it should be well up there and it'll solve the 10mm or 12mm dilimema nicely. I'd wait if you can.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I hadn't heard about this. I notice it's not got a constant apperture like the 11-16 has. They say it'll be better than the 11-18mm, how will it fit in with the 11-16 -does anyone know/ can anyone speculate?
 
teddyt72 said:
Interesting, I hadn't heard about this. I notice it's not got a constant apperture like the 11-16 has. They say it'll be better than the 11-18mm, how will it fit in with the 11-16 -does anyone know/ can anyone speculate?
Click to expand...

The Tamron 11-18 is very good, I used to own one of these, and its optically way up there. It got good reviews, but it was always pricier than the alternatives, so no one bought it, although its sold in Sony mount (re-badged) very well.

I did find the Tamron 11-18 range very restrictive, and thats one thing that puts me off the Tokina 11-16mm. Its a very narrow range, almost like a prime with a bit of bonus zoom in a way. I think I'd only go for that if I had a second body to put it on, as I reckon you'd be swapping a lot. I've used the lens briefly, and optically its very nice but... its just too narrow.

Optically Tamron never seems to put a foot wrong, so if they say the 10-24 is better than their 11-18 its going to be a very good lens. Not sure off pricing, but its already out in Japan:
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2008/0901_b001.html
 
The narrow range is the only thing putting me off the tokina tbh otherwise I would have it like a shot..Toying with the idea of the 14-24mm but not going fx for a while so not sure I'd benefit from it on a dx body..
 
puddleduck said:
The Tamron 11-18 is very good, I used to own one of these, and its optically way up there. It got good reviews, but it was always pricier than the alternatives, so no one bought it, although its sold in Sony mount (re-badged) very well.

I did find the Tamron 11-18 range very restrictive, and thats one thing that puts me off the Tokina 11-16mm. Its a very narrow range, almost like a prime with a bit of bonus zoom in a way. I think I'd only go for that if I had a second body to put it on, as I reckon you'd be swapping a lot. I've used the lens briefly, and optically its very nice but... its just too narrow.

Optically Tamron never seems to put a foot wrong, so if they say the 10-24 is better than their 11-18 its going to be a very good lens. Not sure off pricing, but its already out in Japan:
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2008/0901_b001.html
Click to expand...

The range is pretty narrow, I agree. However (and maybe I'm wrong) I'm buying this because I want a wide angle lens, so I would expect to be using it nearer the 11mm end most of the time anyway. So I think I could live with this.

Let me know what you decide, OP... I think i'll wait until the 10-24 comes out and see how the reviews fare vs the 11-16.

Eddie.
 
I would seriously consider the Sigma 12-24.

At the moment, you have reasonably high end bodies, so it's not unreasonable to think that you may well expand into FF in the not too distant future and the Sigma is one of the few (if not the only) ultra wides that is FF/35mm compatible.
 
I'm having a similar dilemma and I find myself, after mucho research, falling toward the Tokina 12-24. It seems to give a great performance optically, I've not found 1 bad review, and that extra bit of zoom seems a bit more practical. And it has that constant aperture as well, although the same can be said for the Tokina 11-16mm too.

Andy
 
I was going to say the Nikon 12-24 until I saw the 'too pricey' comment

Then I saw you had what could have been £4,000s worth of cameras and don't want to spend a bit on the lens ??? Seems a bit daft to me that m8 - it's only about £600 now and was almost £1,000 when I bought it - MPB (on here) have them in too from time to time :shrug:

Here's Ken Rockwell's summary - it may help

Executive Summary: Get the Nikon if you can afford it, otherwise go for the Tokina.

DD
 
This thread makes for interesting reading - I'm after a wide lens for landscape, and had been fairly set on the Sigma 10-20, but the Tamron 10-24 looks like it could be a winner.
 
I've used both Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 (a friend has the sigma, I own the Tokina) and I can safely say that the Tokina Rocks. Optically its fantastic, sharp as a needle at around 10-14F. Dooo it
 
DiddyDave said:
I was going to say the Nikon 12-24 until I saw the 'too pricey' comment

Then I saw you had what could have been £4,000s worth of cameras and don't want to spend a bit on the lens ??? Seems a bit daft to me that m8 - it's only about £600 now and was almost £1,000 when I bought it - MPB (on here) have them in too from time to time :shrug:

Here's Ken Rockwell's summary - it may help

Executive Summary: Get the Nikon if you can afford it, otherwise go for the Tokina.

DD
Click to expand...

Probably cos he spent £4000 on bodies! ;)

I had the Sigma 10-20 and was very pleased with it but sold it to get a lens I needed more at the time. The Tokina 12-24, although excellent IQ has, I have read, noticeably high CA`s.
Is this right and if so, will the D300 be able to correct it before it gets to PS.
I ask as I quite fancy the Tokina

Allan
 
I bought a 10-20mm Sigma for my Nikon a couple of months back. Apart from the occasional odd distortion at 10mm I have been very pleased with it. Although I've not had any experience with the Tokina lens :)
 
DiddyDave said:
I was going to say the Nikon 12-24 until I saw the 'too pricey' comment

Then I saw you had what could have been £4,000s worth of cameras and don't want to spend a bit on the lens ??? Seems a bit daft to me that m8 - it's only about £600 now and was almost £1,000 when I bought it - MPB (on here) have them in too from time to time :shrug:

Here's Ken Rockwell's summary - it may help

Executive Summary: Get the Nikon if you can afford it, otherwise go for the Tokina.

DD
Click to expand...

Hi,

I've just been reading through the various reviews, and taking into account what has been said here, I've decided to go for a new Sigma 10-20. whn talking uber wide angle, 2mm at the wide end gives an extra 20% which is not insignificant.

I've spend just over 1K this weekend on a new Nikkor 17-55 2.8DX and an 18-200VR zoom, so cash is somewhat tight (I'm a pensioner).

I need the 10-20 to take some interior shot's of my daughters cottage and I doubt it will see much use afterwards, so it would seem a little extreme to spen the extra on the Nikon:)

Thanks all for your help and suggestions.
 
allanm said:
The Tokina 12-24, although excellent IQ has, I have read, noticeably high CA`s.
Is this right and if so, will the D300 be able to correct it before it gets to PS.
I ask as I quite fancy the Tokina

Allan
Click to expand...

The Tokina has a bit more CA than both the Nikkor 12-24 and Sigma 10-20.

Actually the Tokina doesn't have CA as such, its generally a blue or purple fringe that can show up shooting backlit contrasty objects.

Too be honest while its possible to induce it, the sort of times when you can induce it usually makes for lousy photos anyhow,so the CA is probably not much of a worry in the real world. I don't think I ever saw it in a well exposed scene tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top