Sigma 10-20 or 12-24?

P

PeteStewardson

Messages
2,470
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Right I'm looking for a wide lens as I have a 24-70 but it's just not wide enough. Right now I can get a new Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL or a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for £299 but not sure which to go for. Any opinions on which would be the better lens?
 
I'm glad you posted this thread. Having convinced myself I'd made up my mind to the 12-24mm I'm now wavering again.

would I be right in assuming that you use Canon? If so, and you ever have any ambitions towards owning a 1 series then you should give serious consideration to the 12-24mm as the other won't work on F/F. However, (and the reason I'm now unsure) it's a nightmare trying to use any form of filter with the 12-24 from what I can gather. I'm swaying more and more towards the idea of buying that 10-20 now, and then changing if I ever need to, in the hope that by that stage Sigma will be making something wide to suit FF without using ND grads being so impractical.

Hopefully someone who uses, or have used, both, will chance along in a minute and give us some sensible assistance! :)
 
Seeing as icecavern ownsa D2X, i presume he plans to use it on his nikon. if im right, the 12-24mm is actually a full frame lens yes? there for it would actually be a 18-30mm on his d2x.

as for the 10-20mm, as its "DC", that'd mean you'd be getting the true 10-20mm on your d2x. by that i mean the lens its self is made for cropped sensors, so would really be a 10mm at 1.5xcrop, as the 12-24mm isnt made for cropped sensors, so it'd actually be a 18-30mm.

and it just so happens im selling a sigma 10-20mm nikon mount too!
might want a chat about that too mate. (y)
 
the 10-20 is a DC lens, but this still means its only 10-20 on a 35mm camera or full frame sensor.

Although a canon man, my 10-20 is actually 16-32 on the 1.6x crop of my EOS 30d.

The 12-24 is really 12-24 on my full frame EOS 5d.

That being said, icecavern will still get a wider fov with the 10-20 as they stack up as 15-30 (for the 10-20) and 18-36 (for the 12-24).

From personal expierience, the 12-24 is a much better lens
 
Muler said:
as for the 10-20mm, as its "DC", that'd mean you'd be getting the true 10-20mm on your d2x. by that i mean the lens its self is made for cropped sensors, so would really be a 10mm at 1.5xcrop, as the 12-24mm isnt made for cropped sensors, so it'd actually be a 18-30mm.
Click to expand...

Incorrect Im afraid. DC lenses only fit on APS-C lenses, but the focal length is still as rated on the lens. Like other lenses on APS-C cameras the crop factor for the field of view still applies.
 
Joe T said:
Incorrect Im afraid. DC lenses only fit on APS-C lenses, but the focal length is still as rated on the lens. Like other lenses on APS-C cameras the crop factor for the field of view still applies.
Click to expand...

i believe your refering to "DG" as aposed to "DC".

i quote from sigma themselves:

"DC (DC Lens)
These are special lenses designed so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras, the compact and lightweight construction is an added bonus ! including compact and lightweight construction."

i could be very wrong, but im 99% im right
 
Joe T said:
Muler, there is nothing in that quote that suggests that they mark the focal length differently.

Yes, they produce a smaller image circle, but this does not affect the actual focal length of the lenses.
Click to expand...

well if its a smaller image circle, then it'd be in proportion with the smaller sensor?
 
The crop factor still applies. I dont know the technical reasons behind it, it is confusing to say the least. DX, DC whatever, you still need to calculate the crop factor. So really, the 10-20 is a 15-30 replacement (the older full frame ultra wide-angle).

If somebody can explain it in lame man terms then please go ahead.

King.
 
The only thing that DC means is that you cant fit it to a full frame (i.e. 35mm) camera, without serious vignetting.

Its the same as Nikons DX lenses or Canons EF-S. Although with some of these there are more reasons why you shouldnt fit them.

Consider the lenses used for Medium format photography. These have the same focal lengths as lenses designed for SLR photography, but because the image sensor (in this the medium-format film) is so large than a 150mm lens becomes a wideangle lens.
 
icecavern, back to your original point.

I would discount the Sigma 12-24, due to the filter issue. Its also quite an old lens now.

The two lenses I would be looking at are the Sigma 10-20 (as you mentioned) and the Tokina 12-24. It is hard to pick between these two, as they are both excellent lenses.

If your budget can stretch to the Nikkor 12-24, then I would get that tbh.
 
Here begineth the sermon:

Focal length is a physical property of a lens and has nothing to do with the size of the sensor of film behind it. Technically it is the distance from the rear nodal lens element and the image plane, the sensor of film.

A 50mm lens on a 35mm camera will give a smaller angle of view than a 50mm on a 645 medium format camera. Similarly on a camera with an APS-C sized sensor the angle of view will be smaller than the 35mm camera.

It makes no difference whether it is a "full frame" lens or an EF-S/DX/DC/Di II lens, the focal length remains the same and so if you want to know the 35mm equivalent field of view on your camera you will need to multiply it by the appropriate factor of your sensor size. Always.

There is only one system of measuring a lenses focal length and what that number means to the field of view will depend purely on the sensor or film size you are using, not on the the size of the image circle cast by the lens.

A 50mm full frame lens on a Nikon DSLR will give you an equivalent field of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

A 50mm DX lens on a Nikon DSLR will give you an equivalent field of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

I repeat the point because it is commonly misunderstood.

It is also worth noting that it the 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR will not give the same image as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera because the focal length effects the depth of field as well as the angle of view. The smaller the focal length the greater depth of field.

Or to put it another way:

A 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR gives the same depth of field as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, but has a smaller angle of view.

A 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR gives the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, but has a greater depth of field.

Michael.
 
In answer to the original question, the difference of 2mm on a wide angle lens can be dramatic, the 10-20mm also has HSM (Sigma's equivalent to Nikon's Silent Wave motor). Unless you need the 20-24mm range I would suggest going with this model.

The benefit of the 12-24 is that it is, I believe, the widest rectilinear (non-fisheye) lens available for 35mm cameras and so if you plan on using it with a film camera too then it would be a good choice. You can use a 10-20mm lens on a 35mm camera but it will give you noticeable fisheye style vignetting, though this might be artistically desirable.

Michael.
 
Thanks. Nice to have it explained,... I knew t was something along thse lines but was never certain enough to open my gob.

King.
 
I have both, the 12-24 is sharper but lacks front fitting filters and also the wideness of the 10-20. It's also a good deal heavier.
 
I have gone from a 10mm to a 12mm (widest) lens.
tbh I have not noticed the difference as much as I thought I would. they are both bloody wide!
 
This is the problem, everyone prefers the one they have, very few people have compared both :(

It'll be a Nikon fitment one, wish I could afford the Nikon 12-24 but that's out of the question unfortunately :(

Maybe I'll toss a coin lol
 
mij said:
Here begineth the sermon:

Focal length is a physical property of a lens and has nothing to do with the size of the sensor of film behind it. Technically it is the distance from the rear nodal lens element and the image plane, the sensor of film.

A 50mm lens on a 35mm camera will give a smaller angle of view than a 50mm on a 645 medium format camera. Similarly on a camera with an APS-C sized sensor the angle of view will be smaller than the 35mm camera.

It makes no difference whether it is a "full frame" lens or an EF-S/DX/DC/Di II lens, the focal length remains the same and so if you want to know the 35mm equivalent field of view on your camera you will need to multiply it by the appropriate factor of your sensor size. Always.

There is only one system of measuring a lenses focal length and what that number means to the field of view will depend purely on the sensor or film size you are using, not on the the size of the image circle cast by the lens.

A 50mm full frame lens on a Nikon DSLR will give you an equivalent field of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

A 50mm DX lens on a Nikon DSLR will give you an equivalent field of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

I repeat the point because it is commonly misunderstood.

It is also worth noting that it the 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR will not give the same image as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera because the focal length effects the depth of field as well as the angle of view. The smaller the focal length the greater depth of field.

Or to put it another way:

A 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR gives the same depth of field as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, but has a smaller angle of view.

A 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR gives the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, but has a greater depth of field.

Michael.
Click to expand...


thanks for explaining this as i bought it up on another thread regarding the sigma 17-70mm lens, which king boro explained a little about, but this is a bit more in dept, i was also under the impression that the sigma dc lens's gave the true field of view on a nikon DSLR, so that being the case that they don't what is the point of them ? and why are they different to any other len's you may buy ? as on the sigma website they advertised as digital camera lens's only :thinking:
 
Joe T said:
Like I said above, they are designed for digital cameras (APS-C sized sensors) and only give an image circle that fits such a sensor. ON a 35mm 'full frame' they will cause vignetting.

The smaller image circle means that hte lenses can be physically smaller and lighter.
Click to expand...

kind of stupid though, as i'd love to use a 10mm on my camera
 
Muler said:
kind of stupid though, as i'd love to use a 10mm on my camera
Click to expand...

Thats just it. 10mm full-frame non-fisheye lens is almost impossible to manufacture, and if it did it would be very very expensive indeed!

Fisheye lenses of this size are available, such as the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye.

Im not sure that producing smaller and lighter lenses for smaller sensors is particularly stupid :shrug:
 
Joe T said:
Im not sure that producing smaller and lighter lenses for smaller sensors is particularly stupid :shrug:
Click to expand...

Agree with you there! Was using a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 the other week and it was great. Has the same coverage as a 70-200 f2.8 FF and weighs so so so much less.
 
Muler said:
kind of stupid though, as i'd love to use a 10mm on my camera
Click to expand...


i'm guessing what muler means is kind of stupid saying it's a 10-20mm len's when it's not, well at least on a DSLR it's not unless you have a full frame sensor, it's kind of deceiving really, i mean if i would have bought the sigma 10-20mm len's to use on my D50 that's what i would expect to be getting, when in reality i'm not, if that makes sense :shrug:
 
Joe T said:
You are still getting a focal length of 10mm!!! You just get a different angle of view than if you are using film!!!
Click to expand...


which i guess means a cropped view, so the only way around it is to have a full frame sensor ?
 
thailand tel said:
i'm guessing what muler means is kind of stupid saying it's a 10-20mm len's when it's not, well at least on a DSLR it's not unless you have a full frame sensor
Click to expand...

The thing to remember about focal length is that it is only a measurement of one aspect of the lens, the effect it has on the image you record is down to the sensor or film size, not the focal length. A 10-20mm lens is always going to be a 10-20mm lens whatever sized sensor or film is behind it, and whether the image it casts is larger or smaller than it can record.

On medium and large format systems 50mm is considered a wide, on a 35mm camera it is "normal", for a DSLR with an APS-C sensor it is a short telephoto, while on a digital compact camera it was would be a very long telephoto. The one thing they all have in common is that they the focal length is 50mm regardless.

I think the biggest sources of confusion about focal length comes from DSLR cameras being a successor to 35mm film, and in most cases retaining the same lens mounts and so lens compatibility, that people try to relate the focal length to a 35mm system giving it two meanings. This is why there was never confusion about the different effects of a focal length between other systems, because they were treated as separate and not compared in the same way.

It also does not help that even amongst DSLR cameras there is not one standard sensor size: Nikon ones are 2/3rds the size of a 35mm frame, Canon uses 5/8ths the size, while Four-Thirds system sensors are half the size. And that is just a rounded average. The 35mm equivalent field of view for Sigma's 10-20mm lens is 15-30mm on a Nikon, 16-32mm on a Canon, and 20-40mm on a Four-Thirds camera.

It would be confusing enough to consumers to have to understand two different systems of measuring lenses if Nikon and Canon used the 35mm equivalent figures for their DX and EF-S lens ranges. For companies like Sigma they would need to use different names for each mount they support.

Thankfully that manufacturers always giving the correct focal length is something that actually helps us because we do not have to worry about such things. A 50mm lens on a D80, for example, will give the same view whether it is a DX or DC lens or not. It would be a lot more confusing if you had two 50mm lensed and had to start wondering whether one is normal and the other a telephoto.

As far as I am aware the Sigma 12-24mm lens is the largest rectilinear (non-fisheye) lens you can get for a 35mm frame camera. A 10mm lens on this format would, as Joe said, be extremely expensive and suffer distortion problems.

Unless you need to work in both APS-C and 35mm systems the best advice is to ignore the 35mm equivalent numbers and just learn what the difference is between different focal lengths on your camera. Then if you do need to relate to a 35mm size, say while reading an article talking about film camera, you can convert in the other direction from that into the system you know and use by dividing the focal length by 2/3rds (for Nikon).

35mm is not in anyway "normal" or "right" that everything else should be considered a variant of, it is just one of many different sized systems used in photography, and there is no need to always think and relate in 35mm terms.

Michael.
 
Well said mij. Totally agreed

One begs the question though, aside from the debate about focal lengths and sensor sizes, which lens produces the better image? (assuming one photographer uses the same lenses; lets not get into a debate about what takes the better image, kit / photographer.)


Is one lens sharper than the other? Do either cause vignetting? Is there a massive price difference? Lets get down to the meat of the matter :D
 
from personal experience the 12-24mm is a far superior lens. imo the extra £100 is worth every penny.
 
Jonnyreb said:
from personal experience the 12-24mm is a far superior lens. imo the extra £100 is worth every penny.
Click to expand...

They are both available at the same price right now ( £299 ) which is why I asked for peoples opinions between them.
 
icecavern said:
They are both available at the same price right now ( £299 ) which is why I asked for peoples opinions between them.
Click to expand...

No doubt then, in my mind, the 12-24 is hands down winner. Whish i'd waited a while :bonk:
 
The only thing really between them is the 10-20 is HSM and the 12-24 isn't as far as I can see.
 
icecavern said:
The only thing really between them is the 10-20 is HSM and the 12-24 isn't as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

They're both HSM - my copies anyway!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top