Is the extra 2mm worth it?

RaglanSurf

RaglanSurf

Messages
11,504
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been umming and aahing about getting an UWA to use on my D90 for some time and initially thought the Nikon 10-20mm would do the job but there does seem to be far more secondhand 12-24mm out there. So my question is, does the extra 2mm make that much difference? Will I really notice that 2mm if I don't have it?

Or if I can't get a Nikon, how good is the Sigma 10-20, is it noticeably poorer quality? I have looked on Ken's site but would prefer first hand experience from someone who's used them in real life rather than just tested them.

Of course this is completely academic as I can't afford any of them until I sell my 18-200 but I understand MFB will do a trade in and they have a 12-24 in stock.
 
I suppose it depends on what you are using it for. If you really want the UWA effect for landscapes or extreme distortions, the extra 2mm of the 12-24mm will make a big difference to reducing your angle of view. A lot of people say that the 12-24mm is a far better lens. I have the Siggy on my Canon and find it very sharp.
 
Brachytron said:
I suppose it depends on what you are using it for. If you really want the UWA effect for landscapes or extreme distortions, the extra 2mm of the 12-24mm will make a big difference to reducing your angle of view. A lot of people say that the 12-24mm is a far better lens. I have the Siggy on my Canon and find it very sharp.
Click to expand...

It'll be primarily for landscapes so maybe It'll have to be the 10mm. It's just a question whether I can justify the extra for the Nikon over the Sigma or even if I need it.
 
YES!

The extra 2mm is allot, believe it or not.....

I had a 10-20, swapped it for a 12-24 and went back the 10-20 after a few weeks!
 
andy_fozzy said:
YES!

The extra 2mm is allot, believe it or not.....

I had a 10-20, swapped it for a 12-24 and went back the 10-20 after a few weeks!
Click to expand...

That's interesting Andy, I kinda figured that would be the case but it's good to hear folks experiences.
 
It is at that focal length...2mm at 12mm means a 17% difference, quite considerable!
 
At such wide angles, the extra 2mm makes a HUGE difference. Many people don't consider this but when we're talking wide, go as wide as you can. I'd be lost now without the extra 2mm my Sigma 10-20 offers, compared to the 12-24 offerings from Tokina and Tamron.
 
As the others have said, 10mm makes a massive difference over 12mm. I very rarely shot my Sigma 10-20 above 10mm. If I want to go ultra-wide I want to push it as far as I possibly can.
 
I had the Canon 10-22(is that what it is?) and changed to the Sigma 12-24mm. The extra 2mm does make a difference but only you can decide if it's enough to sway the issue. It wasn't for me personally.

The Sigma 12-24mm is IMVHO a better lens than than the Canon and it'll work on FF too.
 
I know the OP mentioned the Nikon 12-24

Note the Sigma 12-24 cannot take filter kits
 
That's not strictly true.

The Sigma 12-24mm takes a gel filter on the camera end and you get a little bracket thing with it to allow you to do this.

The lens cap is a sort of bucket thing and if you only take the actual lens cap off and leave the bucket thing in place you can then fit whatever you want, including a Cokin system. You'll probably see it in all your pictures though. :)
 
Ok, all interesting stuff. So what are the pros/cons of the the Nikon 10-24 over the Sigma 10-20? Has anybody tried them both?
 
taz said:
Get the Sigma 12-24, then when you upgrade to the D700 you've already got your UUWA :D
Click to expand...


Nice idea but that's not going to happen for a while :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top