Sigma 12-24 vs Tokina 12-24

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Baywing, Jul 27, 2007.

  1. Baywing

    Baywing

    Feb 22, 2005
    CT USA
    Outside of the obvious, FF vs Dx and the price, what are the differences in IQ and abberitions?
    I recently returned a Tokina 12-24, haven't been able to determine for sure if I got a less than stellar copy or if they are all like the one I had, so I'm not willing to rule it out just yet. The FF of the Sigma is interesting, as I still have my F5 and the thought of 12mm on FF has peeked my interest.
    I do remember reading a review comparing the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, Tamron 11-18 and Nikkor 12-24 which seemed to favor the Tokina as a best bang for the buck over the Nikon, but the Sigma 12-24 wasn't part of the comparison. (if anyone remembers where that review was, I can't seem to find it!) If cost were no object, the Nikon would likely be my choice, but it's really out of reach considering the use it will get and other lusted after lenses and accessories.
     
  2. Kenrockwell did the review, it was an "ultra wide comparison", I don't have the link but just google it and you will get it.

    Also I pondered trading my 10-20 for a 12-24 because I have a film camera aswell, but from what I've heard about the 12-24 (What people told me that is) Is that its not very good.
    Too much flare / ghosting (the huge complaint), and it being super heavy + only drop in front filters work.
     
  3. Baywing

    Baywing

    Feb 22, 2005
    CT USA
    I've seen Rockwell's review, that's not the one I was referring to. Might be Digital Darrel, I'll have to look there.
    I'm not really bothered by filters, the only one I use is a Pol and I won't use that on an ultra wide. Weight doesn't bother me either, I'm used to a 70-200 VR or 80-200 AFS, 300 f4.
    Thanks.
     
  4. thebac

    thebac

    329
    Jul 23, 2007
    US
  5. IIRC, the Nikonians website had a review of the Tokina, Nikon and one other, as well as Ken Rockwell.
     
  6. Check out this thread:
    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=123784

    When the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 appeared, the Sigma 12-24 began to fade in the reviews (unfairly I think) and the admittedly great IQ from the Tokina and Sigma 10-20 does put pressure on the 12-24. Still, I haven't seen a lens in this range that is good enough to convince me to buy it, but I wouldn't fault anyone for buying any lens in this range.

    What I liked about the Nikkor 12-24
    IQ (f4 and f5.6 ... superb)
    Constant f4
    Handling and ergonomics
    Sharpness
    Color Fidelity (a tad better than the Sigma unless my processing was flawed)

    What I liked about the Sigma 12-24
    IQ (especially at f5.6)
    Sharpness
    Rectilinearity
    Handling
    Lack of CA (amazing for a lens of this type)
    Price (though price was not a factor in my decision)

    What I did not like about the Nikkor 12-24
    Some distortion on some images (often called moustache distortion)
    CA (harsh in some images, not too noticeable in others)

    What I did not like about the Sigma 12-24
    Flare is sometimes awful (can be overcome by shading the light source in some circumstances but that's not an ideal fix)
    Front filters cause vingetting, slight but irritating
    Maximum f-stops (f4 or f3.5-4.5 would be nice)

    On balance, both lenses are terrific. I'm a fan of both Sigma and Nikon (just look at my signature block) but, for me, image flatness and lack of CA sold me on the Sigma. I would rate the IQ and sharpness a toss up with both lenses being a bit better on the long end than on the short. Both will give primes in these FLs a run for their money.

    A European Technical Image Press Association (TIPA) award was given to both the Sigma 12-24 and 10-20 in different years.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  7. Baywing

    Baywing

    Feb 22, 2005
    CT USA
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  8. Baywing

    Baywing

    Feb 22, 2005
    CT USA
  9. there is a LOT of difference in coverage of just the 2 mm, giving the 10-20 a big advantage, especially on interiors shoots when the flare is absent (indoors)- a lot more coverage than you would imagine and well worth it when in cramped quarters,,,,,
     
  10. chrisnck

    chrisnck

    27
    Jul 19, 2007
    mass
    Im glad i found this thread just what i needed
     
Loading...