Sigma 10-20mm on a D200

V

vecsri

Messages
669
Name
Richard Black
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone used this? Really need somthing alittle wider than my 24-70.
Thinking this is the correct route?
 
Wide angles are a necessity for stunning photographs. I would go for the Nikon 12-24 f4. Fantastic sharp images with rich colours. There is one for sale on the for sale forum. Have a look. Think it is up for about £450.
 
I use the Sigma 10-20 and love it, especially given the price of it. Though, I would much prefer to have the Nikon 14-24 f4 as it is a much better lens by any measure.

The Sigma, at 10mm can distort things rather too much for my liking :shrug:, so I tend to use it from about 12mm upwards.
 
Sigma - 250
Nikon 450
hehe :(
 
Yup, there is a significant price difference ... but so too is the quality. Keeping in mind the Nikon is an F4 thourghout the whole zoom range!
 
The £200 difference will be worth it in the long run! Save for another month or so. The wait will be worth it.
 
Cant justify it lads :( got my house to pay for too.
 
Then go for it, you can't get any better given the price!
 
Excellent :D
I cant wait. Just so many places i've been with the 24 and thought... What if?!
 
The Sigma is a fair lens if budget's a problem, ideal for those wide landscape shots. I used mine a lot when out walking but it became used less often after I bought a Nikon VR 28-200!

This is the kind of wide shot it's usefull for:
Dscf5464.jpg


More examples here:

http://s48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/laser_jock99/EQUIPMENT/SIGMA 10-20mm ZOOM/
 
The Sigma has very little distortion, and it's not noticable on landscapes - it's just elitist talk otherwise!! Yes, the Nikon lens has slightly better quality, optics, aperture, but it also has double the price...

As soon as I have the cash, it's next on my buy-list!! There's a few more examples with the lens in my Flickr galleries - you can't miss the wide ones!!!

514143251_6c6cd93a00_o.jpg
 
The Sigma is great and for some it's preferable to the Nikkor 12-24. I don't now how you can manage with a 24mm wide end. :)
 
2.8 17-55 and use your legs................(y)
 
I have the 10-20mm (on a D300) and my brother has a Nikon 12-24mm that I borrow from time to time.

The Nikon probably has slightly better corner sharpness, less chromatic aberration, and perhaps maybe slightly better distortion control. None of these are really that important where wide angle shots are involved, to be honest. Your shot should distract someone from getting a magnifying glass and inspecting the top left corner of the photograph.

Nikon certainly have the edge on build quality and quality control, but I don't mind the build quality of my Sigma at all. I've heard that some 10-20mm lenses have very poor corner quality, but most retailers will swap the lens out for you, or you could make use of the distance selling act. For what it's worth, I've used the sigma in the rain, I've chucked it loose into a bag, it feels very very solid.

Even though I have access to both, I almost always use the 10-20mm. I'm not alone here, Thom Hogan does the same:
http://bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

Basically, I have a wide angle lens to go wide. My 10-20mm rarely goes narrower than 14 mm, and spends most of it's time at 10mm. I've grown to love the distortion (but I can remove it in DXO if I want.)



Click the image to go to the flickr page where you can see the data/enlarged versions.
 
Magnum said:
Get the Tokina 12-24.
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure I trust Ken's judgement.

Most of his argument against the Sigma seems to based on build quality rather than image quality (which varies so much from sample to sample, to reiterate it is worth testing the lens to make sure yours is acceptably sharp.) My own personal experiences tell me that the Sigma has perfectly acceptable build quality. The focus/zoom rings are tight and solid, nothing rattles too worryingly (all modern lenses rattle a bit), the lens barrel doesn't flex. It feels good in the hand, certainly not as good as the Nikkor 105mm AF Micro, probably about the same as the Nikkor 18-200 VR.
 
vecsri said:
Anyone used this? Really need somthing alittle wider than my 24-70.
Thinking this is the correct route?
Click to expand...


Its very wide, mines was soft on my D200 I feel, but down to user error I think.

Gary.
 
Blapto said:
I'm not 100% sure I trust Ken's judgement.

Most of his argument against the Sigma seems to based on build quality rather than image quality (which varies so much from sample to sample, to reiterate it is worth testing the lens to make sure yours is acceptably sharp.) My own personal experiences tell me that the Sigma has perfectly acceptable build quality. The focus/zoom rings are tight and solid, nothing rattles too worryingly (all modern lenses rattle a bit), the lens barrel doesn't flex. It feels good in the hand, certainly not as good as the Nikkor 105mm AF Micro, probably about the same as the Nikkor 18-200 VR.
Click to expand...

You should really feel a Tokina lens. I think the 18-200 VR feels terrible for the money.

I have never heard about the Tokina varying in image quality, but the sigma does. The review also implies that it is the best image quality of the third party lenses and isn't far off the Nikon.

It costs the same as the Sigma, so why not go for the one that doesnt vary in image quality, is comparable to the Nikon, and feels the most sturdy out of all the wide angles.
 
Magnum said:
It costs the same as the Sigma, so why not go for the one that doesnt vary in image quality, is comparable to the Nikon, and feels the most sturdy out of all the wide angles.
Click to expand...

Simply because another 10 degrees field of view on a crop sensor was important enough for me. As I've said before the build quality is certainly good enough.
That said, if 12mm is wide enough, then by all means it sounds like the Tokina is a better bet.
 
Blapto said:
Simply because another 10 degrees field of view on a crop sensor was important enough for me. As I've said before the build quality is certainly good enough.
That said, if 12mm is wide enough, then by all means it sounds like the Tokina is a better bet.
Click to expand...

This was the only point i can have against the Tokina.
Does anyone have comparison pics of 10mm and 12mm on a crop sensor?
 
Magnum said:
This was the only point i can have against the Tokina.
Does anyone have comparison pics of 10mm and 12mm on a crop sensor?
Click to expand...
12mm:
2582373788_7cef1bd82d.jpg


10mm:
2582377596_01498b5f1e.jpg


Not great shots, no post processing done at all, but they're the only two I can find where I used both focal lengths but didn't move where I was stood.

It's a fairly good comparison as the builds are more or less at infinity and there's no tricks of perspective there at all.

That Tokina lens does look good! It slipped my mind as I've never tried it, and it wasn't available when I bought the Sigma.
 
I have used the Sigma 10-20, I have the Nikon 12-24 and the 17-55.

The 17-55 is a superb lens and I did need something wider. I think the Nikon is better build quality and feel and slightly better optics, but a good version of the sigma has less distortion around the edges compared to the Nikon 12-24.

I haven't tried the tokinas and I guess with your budget, that is the real comparison you need, especially the 11-16mm.
 
vecsri said:
Anyone used this? Really need something a little wider than my 24-70.
Click to expand...

I'm going to dissent. The 10-20, which everyone on TP seems to love, is too wide for many applications. Think very carefully about what you might want to use it for.

I have the Canon 10-22 and I love it, but not for landscapes. There's too great a temptation to shoot everything at 10mm, and then those mountains which looked so impressive when you were there become just little bumps on the horizon. There's also the problem of a huge amount of foreground, which tends to lead to contrived compositions...

(Without wishing to be disrespectful, I would suggest that the picture posted by reddeathdrinker exhibits both these problems.)

But for some applications the ultra-wide is invaluable. Indoors architecture (eg cathedrals for tourists, living rooms for estate agents) is one. Shooting in narrow villagey streets. Landscapes with big impressive skies. That's where the 10-20/22 really shines, in my opinion.
 
i had been thinking about the nikon 12-24 but may well give this Tokina 12-24 a go first, what have a i to loose lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top