1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Trade Sigma 10-20 HSM for 12-24 HSM?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by lexiticus, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. Since I have a film camera that I use aswell, and the 10-12mm range although awesome to have, Is replaceable With the Full frame 12-15mm The lens would give me on my N80.

    So do you think it would be a good idea to trade up from the 10-20 to the 12-24? I don't use the lens THAT much, And I bought the 10-20mm new, so it still has a warranty. I haven't heard much about the 12-24 since it is apparently quite heavy, and the Nikon 12-24 is better / brighter.
    So anyone have experience with the Sigma 12-24? I'm not even sure what they run for used because I rarely see them!

    Right now my widest Lens for film is a Sigma 24mm f1.8, Which's close focus distance and great sharpness at f1.8 makes it a fantastic lens to have. So I can benefit from the wide end.

  2. I own both, and unless you have an interest in using it on a film camera (one that is compatible with a G lens), I'd save your money and time. For a DX camera, the 10-20 is wider, smaller, lighter, cheaper, is compatible with filters requiring threads, and vastly better at resisting flare and ghosting.

    Both are capable of producing quality images, but the 12-24 takes considerably more effort to yield the same result.

    It just isn't worth the effort unless you want the astonishingly wide perspective of 12mm on film. For example, like this:
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    That was taken with the 12-24 @ 12mm on an F5. I was no more than about six feet from the building!

    The one exception to my comments above is if you specialize in architecture. In that domain, the Sigma 12-24 is superior to almost any other lens out there, in that it is a rectilinear lens that has virtually no barrel or pincushion distortion. Considering that this is true even at 12mm on film, this is quite a remarkable design. In contrast the 10-20 has noticeable barrel distortion from 14mm on down.

    I pretty much always use the 10-20 these days, primarily because of the flare and ghosting problem. The 12-24 is literally the worst lens I've ever used when it comes to producing flare, and not by a small margin. For example:
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Despite all this, I've kept the 12-24 since I do some real estate work - and I'm close to buying an F5, almost exclusively for the purpose of mounting this 12-24 and a circular fisheye that I've been itching to get for years. And of course, if Nikon does ever do a 36x24 DSLR, I'll be prepared.
  3. Ahh ok, I'll stick with my 10-20mm then, I use it for sports sometimes where I can't control where the sun is, So that flare would be a deal breaker. I can live with the 24mm on Film.

    Thanks for youre help! That was exactly what I was looking for!

  4. Nikkor 14mm f/2.8

    Could always go for the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 and slap that on your film camera. That would be the same perspective as a 9mm on your DSLR. How it performs I don't know but it runs for almost CDN$1600!
  5. haha, I don't think I need to spend that much money :)  I was just looking to see if the trade up would be usefull to me, Turns out it would annoy me more than anything!

    My film cam can wait! I should pick up a scanner first anyway
  6. These two lenses have created quite a controversy since the release of the 10-20. In fact, the 12-24 has taken such a backseat that in comparisons of the lenses in this class it gets left out.

    I have used the Sigma 12-24 since June of 2004. I tested it very thoroughly in Taiwan against the Nikkor 12-24 and decided on the Sigma because it has virtually no CA, especially from about 15mm or16mm to 24mm, much better rectilinearity (important to me), and the IQ is as good. The negatives of this lens are well known but I buy lenses for what they are and not for what they are not. That said, I have used the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18, and Tokina 12-24 enought to convince me that the Sigma 12-24 is still the pick of the litter. If its flare control were better and it had a constant f3.5 it would be head and shoulders above everything in its class. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stikin' to it.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.