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!

Wide angle for DX - whose had both Nikon 12-24 and Sigma 10-20

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Jim_C, Sep 25, 2008.

  1. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    I'm reluctant to start yet another thread about wide angle zooms because there have been many. (Though they can be tough to search for because you can't use 10-20 or 12-24 as a search term :) )

    So there are plenty of recommendations floating around from people who have these lenses.

    I have a more specific question: Who has had both the Sigma 10-20 and the Nikon 12-24. Which one did you end up keeping (or preferring) and why?

    (FWIW, I rented the 12-24 for a trip last year, but have never shot with the 10-20; only read recommendations here and elsewhere.)
     
  2. I owned the 10-20 and have ready access to the Nikkor 12-24. I found the Sigma good enough for anything I needed to do, half the price of the Nikkor, and also a wider lens to begin with. That it left a larger gap to my other lenses was close to irrelevant. (I do without the entire 20-35 range and can think of only two times when it was an issue.) It was a pretty simple decision, actually. Was there anything wrong with the Nikkor? No. Is it better? Slightly at the long end, but the Sigma is slightly better at the short end.

    I no longer have the 10-20 because I sold it to finance other NAS, and it was the easiest thing to sell at a reasonable price before the credit card bill came in and I had to have money to pay it. It sold in four hours at a pretty reasonable price.

    I do miss the 10-20 and would get another one now except that I will likely get an FX body next and with it the inevitable 14-24/f2.8.
     
  3. Not really 100 percent what you are asking for, but I've extensively worked with both the 10-20 siggy and the 12-24 tokina. The tokina is way sharper but the sigma was far more flare resistant. The tokina has less distortion too, the sig has alot of trouble keeping straight lines straight.
     
  4. Zorac

    Zorac

    300
    Dec 22, 2007
    Calgary, Canada
    i found the nikon a touch sharper wide open, and i prefer the constant aperture of the nikon (as well as the extra speed that comes with that on the long end) so i sold my sigma and bought the nikon.
     
  5. Pianisimo

    Pianisimo Guest

    I've tried both, I went with the Sigma. It was more fun. Isn't that enough justification? :D 
     
  6. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    Sure. Having not shot with the Sigma, I don't have a good sense for how much wider 10mm is than 12mm (on a crop body).
     
  7. See http://images.blw.net/blw/focal_lengths

    However, due to the nature of the sequence, they do not demonstrate the most effective use of an ultra-wide lens.
     
  8. waltny

    waltny

    Mar 27, 2008
    Reno, NV
    Do not discredit the 12-24/f4 tokina. Very good lens for the price, some even say it rivals if not matches or beats the f4 nikkor hands down. Also there is the updated 11-16/f2.8 tokina that could be had for a little bit more.
     
  9. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    Does either Tokina have a built-in focus motor?

    For the newer Tokina, I'm not sure I'm willing to trade a faster aperture (not as necessary on the wide end) for a more limited zoom range.
     
  10. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    The answer appears to be no. That's fine for my current body. (I have been toying with the idea of picking up a smaller body - like a D40 - for hiking.)
     
  11. I had both and went with the Sigma. It was cheaper, and I sold my 12-24 while DX lenses were still selling well. Sigma lens held its value too. I really enjoyed both, but knew that I would go FX eventually, so did not want a lot of cash tied up in DX lenses... The extra 2mm makes a difference on those DX bodies...
     
  12. Sure the 2mm on the wide end is a world of difference. Keep in mind that the extra 4mm on the long end is a world of difference too. As a landscape shooter I love that my 12-24 tokina is not only an ultra wide lens, but a wide-normal lens as well. I used to shoot the Sigma cranked all the way to 20mm more than I shot it at 10mm. And at 20mm the sig has alot of pincushion distortion. The 12-24 has saved me from making a few lens changes that's for sure.

    It really depends on how you shoot. Having shot a few of them I don't think any of the DX wide zooms are dogs. The only worrying factor is that the sig has a fair amount of sample variation. Buy it from a great dealer and you should be golden.
     
  13. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    And that is really it, in a nutshell.

    If it were *just* a question of price vs. performance, that might be easier to answer. But throw in the different ranges covered, and it makes the question a lot more complicated.

    I went away this weekend and was in few situations where I definitely could have gone wider than 18 (widest lens I had with me.) Could I have used 10? I'm not sure. I also used > 20mm a lot.

    Since I don't yet have a ultra-wide angle zoom, it is hard to answer the "depends on how you shoot question" :) . At some point I'm going to have to pick one, and hope I've made the right choice.
     
  14. I had both with a D300. I don't really like wide angle distortion, so I didn't like using the 10mm side the Sigma, but I loved having the 24mm side of the Nikon. There was also a bit of a problem with AF Fine Tune using a Sigma 10x20 and Sigma 30mm on the same camera, so the 10x20 had to go....
     
  15. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    Thanks for the response.

    The perils of third party lenses. Since both lenses are quite popular, one would hope Sigma would be able to resolve this problem...
     
  16. I owned the Sigma 10-20 for about 6 months, and I sold it for the Nikon 12-24.

    I do not regret my decision. The sigma had too much distortion at 10mm, and the Nikon even has less at 12mm IMO.

    I also love having the 24mm on the Nikon, it's long enough to take small group shots from a reasonable distance.

    At 20mm (on the Sigma) I felt like I was way to close to my subjects.

    However, if money is tight, for $150-200 less, the Sigma is not a bad choice.

    Others recommend the tokina 11-16 but it was out of the picture for me, since it wasn't quite long enough.
     
  17. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    Where have you seen the Nikon 12-24 for as little as $150-200 more than the sigma? It appears to be, at best, about $300 more new.
     
  18. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    I loved and miss my 10-20 since getting my D700.
    It was my favorite wide angle :( 
     
  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.