Nikon 10-24 or Sigma 10-20

B16JUS

B16JUS

Messages
166
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
No
Dows anyone own either of these would be interested in hearing about them.

In a ideal world i would like to keep all my kit Nikon but it seems mostly the sigma pop up second hand.

Looking for a lens for car close ups where im about 6 ft away

Cheers

J
 
I used to have the Siggy when I had crop bodies. Lovely bit of kit. Mine was very sharp.
 
I'm not sure if you'll want to hear this :|, but I too was considering UWA DX lenses a couple of weeks ago and thought about those two lenses. In the end, I opted for the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X and have been really impressed with the results (and the build quality of it) :).

It's motorised, so it'll AF with all Nikon DSLRs. It's priced in between the Sigma and the Nikon, but neither of those have f/2.8 apertures :shrug:.

Just another one to consider ;).
 
My 10-24 Nikon is lovely, no image issues with it but I'm finding it gets less use than I thought it would.

Still it was cheap so I don't think I'll be getting rid of it.

Nick.
 
NAF 10-24 has the zoom range; Siggy 10-20mm is cheap. Buy a tokina 11-16 or 12-24 i say, or splash out on a NAF 12-24 if you're feeling flush
 
No problems with my Sigma, nice and sharp and to be honest, for what mine gets used for, I wouldn't use the f2.8 so no need to pay extra for the tokina.
 
I've got the sigma 10-20 - lovely and sharp and AF to die for

Siggy 10-20mm is cheap. Buy a tokina 11-16 or 12-24 i say, or splash out on a NAF 12-24 if you're feeling flush
Click to expand...

YES the 10-20 is cheap, but it's better (sharper, better built) than the canon 10-22 i hired out. which is almost twice the price! Just because you're paying more money for something dosen't necessarily mean it's any better.
 
Some people say the sigma 10-20 feels cheap.
Well, its cheap, but it's sharp, it's color is great, what else do I need? :D

The tokina 116 is no doubt the best, but you can hardly find it with a good price. And, I don't think I need the f/2.8 thing with ultrawide lens...
 
Naboo32 said:
It's motorised, so it'll AF with all Nikon DSLRs. It's priced in between the Sigma and the Nikon, but neither of those have f/2.8 apertures :shrug:.
Click to expand...

That really depends whether you need f/2.8 though, doesn't it?

I've never had a situation where losing a stop to shoot f/4 has been a problem on my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, or even f/5.6 on the 20mm end, and handholding down to 1/15-1/30 isn't really an issue on a lens this wide.

If you're shooting landscapes, you're generally going to be on a tripod and rarely shooting faster than f/8 anyway.

There's two Sigma 10-20mm lenses btw. One is f/4-5.6, one is f/3.5, more expensive, and not as good. Get the f/4-5.6 version.

The Sigma 10-20mm doesn't feel cheap to me when it's mounted on my camera. It's got good weight to it, AF is very fast, a very solid performer imo.

I wouldn't say the Tokina is "no doubt the best" personally.
 
Wow loads to think about cheers guys,

im deff looking at a used one as not going to pay mega money.

That rules the nikon out as cant seem to see any used ones about deff used sigmas about approx £300 - 350

will have a read up on tokina and look about
 
bomberman said:
I've got the sigma 10-20 - lovely and sharp and AF to die for



YES the 10-20 is cheap, but it's better (sharper, better built) than the canon 10-22 i hired out. which is almost twice the price! Just because you're paying more money for something dosen't necessarily mean it's any better.
Click to expand...

Never said it was rubbish (although I don't rate it). Just said it was cheap. To some people that's the overriding factor...;)
 
Kaouthia said:
That really depends whether you need f/2.8 though, doesn't it?

I've never had a situation where losing a stop to shoot f/4 has been a problem on my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, or even f/5.6 on the 20mm end, and handholding down to 1/15-1/30 isn't really an issue on a lens this wide.

If you're shooting landscapes, you're generally going to be on a tripod and rarely shooting faster than f/8 anyway.

There's two Sigma 10-20mm lenses btw. One is f/4-5.6, one is f/3.5, more expensive, and not as good. Get the f/4-5.6 version.

The Sigma 10-20mm doesn't feel cheap to me when it's mounted on my camera. It's got good weight to it, AF is very fast, a very solid performer imo.

I wouldn't say the Tokina is "no doubt the best" personally.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely John, f/2.8 is nowhere near as beneficial on an UWA lens as it is on a long telephoto lens - I agree. Bokeh is pretty negligible anyway, even wide open :|. There are some example shots in this thread and #5 shows you how the shallowest DOF looks with this lens.

Link ...

That said, I would say that having an aperture twice as large as the competitors (or even larger when they are used at f/5.6) to focus and meter through is an advantage, even if it's only a small one. Like you, I expect to be using a tripod and f/8 quite often, but I know that I will also use it for other applications where the extra stop and (potentially) improved AF performance in low light would be really useful to have. On top of that, I didn't buy the Tokina specifically for the aperture; I had heard that its sharpness and lack of distortion were extremely good, as it was designed with a narrower zoom range, to allow for 'better' optics :shrug:.

I'm certainly in no position to criticise the Sigma or Nikon options, as I haven't shot with either and nor would I write anything like it's "no doubt the best" about the Tokina (although I realise that you weren't quoting me there ;)).

No, as I said before, it's just a third option for the OP to consider, which he may not have been aware of before :).
 
If I'm shooting on a tripod, I can happily switch on the liveview, and zoom in to the detail I want for manual focusing (which I do anyway).

Metering I also do myself too based on the histogram. If I'm shooting landscapes and have ND grads and NDs in front of my lens, the camera's metering doesn't always (often) get things quite how I want them anyway.

Personally, I think both the Nikon and Sigma options are great. I wasn't really all that impresed with the Tokina, but it's possible I played with a bad sample of the lens. For the money, and my needs, the Sigma wins.

Oh, I know you didn't write "no doubt the best", but "Dat Le" did.
 
I have the Sigma 10 - 20 and am well pleased. On my normal A4 prints there is no visible softness, but a small amount is visisble on an A2 enlargement, but only right in the corners and on close inspection - at any sensible viewing distance its not noticeable.

Whilst the Nikon may be better its a lot more expensive, maybe I would like one, but to be honest how often will you make enlargements that big?

UWA's make images with impact and a well composed image will mean that close inspection just wont happen.

Overall, I recommend the Sigma, my suspicion is that at A2 even the Nikon would show some softness........
 
really interested in the canon version, infact i have my eyes on a particular one that someone has forsale, but now seeing as people are saying siggy is better than canon its got me thinking, personally id rather have canon as im more than impressed with the other lenses ive had but not been too happy with the siggys ive had in the past :thinking:
 
I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 and love it, its very well made and handles nicely. Its the older version without the in lens motor and I got it new for £299 a few months back. I dont know a lot about the Nikon other than its expensive, but the Sigma is well liked and sharp but distorts at the short end so much so that one pro I know only uses it at 12mm and above. You might like to read this review http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15/page4.asp of 3 wide angle zooms. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is also supposed to be excellent but is big, heavy and expensive and has a very limited zoom range which is why I ended up going with the 12-24 and have nt regretted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top