Wide angle overview

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by voider, Feb 5, 2006.

  1. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    EDIT: I added my findings after testing both lenses

    Edit2: After 2 days of testing I am very happy about the Sigma 10-20. I think the results are just amazing.

    Hi,

    I just did a small comparison of the Sigma 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 for myself but thought this would be interesting for some people here:

    Most of my findings based on the reviews and charts of www.photozone.de and partly my own testing

    Sigma 12-24 Pro
    Nearly no distortion
    A little vignetting at the wide end but very little from 14mm on
    Excellent build quality
    Good to very good resolution
    HSM

    Sigma 12-24 Contra
    Shows some CA
    Not an F4
    Front element allows no filters
    lowest resolution from the 3 at 12mm

    Sigma 10-20 Pro (Tested by myself)
    Excellent resoultion throughout its range and especially at the wide end.
    Nearly no CA. The results in this regard are just awesome and incredible. Why could not Nikon do this with the 12-24?
    Little distortion
    excellent build quality
    10mm
    HSM
    Excellent sharpness

    Sigma 10-20 Contra (Tested by myself)
    Vignetting, lens needs to be stop down (Most tests mention vignetting but I did not see it as such a big problem so far. Little vignetting IMO only)
    Not an F4
    Less Contrast than Tokina (Can be an advantage for contrasty scenes. It gives you more dynamic range)
    Less saturated than Tokina 12-24 but still good

    Tokina 12-24 Pro (Tested by myself)
    Superior build quality
    F4
    Good to very good resolution
    Very little vignetting compared to the others
    Excellent contrast
    Excellent sharpness
    Excellent saturation

    Tokina 12-24 Contra (Tested by myself)
    A lot of CA all over the picture
    In contrasty scenes, night shots for example, CA can not be removed
    Highest distortion of the 3 but still good
    No built in motor (But I think this is not a very important factor)


    So what is the vedict:

    I would say that the Sigma 10-20 is doing excellent. The high resolution is a big advantage, especially if you are planing to use it at the wide end.

    The Tokina has the best image quality in total if you disregard CA and distortion. The Tokina is also sharper at the corners. CA is horrible at night shots with the D2x. The Sigma has nearly no CA in comparison, especially in contrasty scenes the Sigma is much better.

    The final answer is:

    If you are shooting high contrast scenes then buy the Sigma 10-20 because:
    Less CA
    Lower contrast of lens helps to maintain a good dynamic range

    If you are shooting low contrast scenes then buy the Tokina 12-24:
    CA is not a problem with low contrast scenes
    Color and contrast improves the total image quality.

    Somebody I know uses the Tokina mainly in the golden hour. This is were the Tokina shines and is really awesome. But if you are doing a lot of night shots and any shots from 10am to 3pm (normally high contrast scenes) then the Sigma is the better choice.

    I think it is still difficult to say who is a winner because not one of them has no cons.

    The Tokina was my favourite for a long time. I heard a lot of good things about it and saw incredibles pictures with it. I think this makes the whole part the most difficult.

    The F4 advantage of the Tokina is really not that critical because most landscape shooters shoot anyway at F8 or higher.

    There are a lot of sample pics out there but not one which compares these 3 lenses. Hopefully somebody who has access to all these lenses will do a test in the near future and give us some information. Of course would it be great to include the Nikon 12-24 in this too.

    From what I have read is that the Nikon 12-24 is the best regarding color, saturation, contrast and sharpness. I am pretty sure that the Sigma 12-24 handles distortion better. Other than that the Nikon is the winner in most tests. Therefore it costs of course more. But the build quality is not excellent and it shows distortion and CA. Therefore I think that the price is pretty high in comparison to the marginal optical advantages you get.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2006
  2. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    I hope people here at nikoncafe can give some insight on sharpness, color, contrast and saturation and who they see as the winner.
     
  3. thanks for you efforts

    like so many folks here... i want and need to purchase one of these this month. this will help in my decision making
    i guess i've heard so much about the tokina, that i was going to get it.... but if the sigma 10-20 is as good (or better in some ways) then the i'll get it, because "10" really is a lot wider than "12"

    thanks again
     
  4. Ray C.

    Ray C.

    650
    Nov 7, 2005
    Thailand
    I have a 10-20mm on the way...Once it arrives, I'll test it and give a report later this week or early next week.
     
  5. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Sounds great Ray. I would appreciate if you could give us a test report with pictures...if you find the time of course :)
     
  6. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Reviews by fredmiranda.com users of the Sigma 10-20:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=298

    Here is another overview with a lot of links

    http://www.pbase.com/isogood/wide_angles_for_apsc_english_version


    Here are some test pictures from the 10-20

    http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/sigma1020test

    http://www.pbase.com/mmccreary/1020

    Sigma 10-20 Vs Tamron 11-18 Vs Sigma 12-24 (Popeye):

    http://www.pbase.com/anserum/sigma_vs_tamron

    http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/sigma_10_20


    Some Tokina test shots:

    Tokina and Nikon 12-24 comparison

    http://www.pbase.com/jkohn/12_24_comparison
    (Either this guy had a bad Nikon 12-24 or the Tokina is just better...The Tokina just looks much sharper on the Brick Wall tests...)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2006
  7. RCL65

    RCL65

    127
    Jan 19, 2006
    Brooklyn, N.Y.
    Timur, Thanks for doing this.
    I've been going in circles with these lenses. I have been asked to shoot interiors with the D200 and my 28PC won't go wide enough. Any ideas out there?
     
  8. I plan to use my 20mm 2.8 for interior shots for real estate. Not as wide as a 17-55 but less distortion it seems to me even at 20 on the 17-55.
     
  9. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Hi Rick,

    I would say that your best bet is either the Nikon 17-35 or the Sigma 12-24. They both are nearly distortion free. It just depends how wide you have to go.
     
  10. Hi Timur,

    Good job on the write up of these lenses. My .02:

    I received a Tokina 12-24 from B&H last week and have tried it out a few times since. I love the build quality; it has a heavy-duty retro feel and is a real pleasure to use. The sharpness, color rendition and distortion all met my expectations.

    CA, even when stopped down to f/11, even at 18 to 24 mm, and in amounts sufficient to prevent complete removal in Nikon Capture, has turned out to be a show stopper for me. The CA shows up in just about every frame I've shot with trees against the sky (even an overcast sky), and not just along the edges of the frame. I'm going to return it to B&H.

    I guess I just got a bad copy, because I know many Cafe members really like this lens and have produced some great images with it (Roman Johnston's beautiful pictures in particular got me interested in this lens). I'm not sure if I should try another copy of the Tokina or go another route (like the Sigma 10-20 or the Nikon 12-24). I'm really disappointed, because the lens delivers in every respect save one.
     
  11. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Hi Dave,

    thank you very much. I don't like CA either. Especially with the D2x it is very visible. Most of my lenses do not show CA so I seldomly have to deal with it.

    Roman Johnston's pictures are still the main reason why I can not decide. On the one hand I am pretty sure that the Sigma 10-20 is the better lens but on the other hand the Tokina can produce such great images. I have not seen any pictures yet with the Sigma 10-20 which come close to Roman Johnston's shots...but this does not mean that it is not possible...

    I have decided for myself to test both lenses at a camera store and just make the decision after it.

    I hope you will try out the Sigma 10-20. I would be curious what you think of it after you have tried the Tokina 12-24.

    Best regards and thank you for posting this,

    Timur
     
  12. I tried the sigma and didn't like it that much; possibly becuase I've been spoiled by the Nikkor. Tokina is very well built, but remember it's screwdriver AF; no problems with speed, but accuracy over such a small change in focus distance (especially when using WA lenses) remains to be seen.

    Ming
     
  13. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Hi Ming,

    what specifically did not impress you with the Sigma? Where were the differences to the Tokina and/or Nikon.
     
  14. RCL65

    RCL65

    127
    Jan 19, 2006
    Brooklyn, N.Y.
    Thanks for your advice Larry and Timur! I had not considered the 20--but of course!!!! I had been warned off the 17-35 because of distortion but I haven't
    been able to try one. The Sigma sounds interesting,Timur. Maybe I'll have to rent all three and play for a day!
    Thanks again.
    Rick
     
  15. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Hi Rick,

    which 17-35 do you mean? The Nikon 17-35 is the best wide angle lens out there. If Nikon would have full frame then this would be the lens to go. It is nearly distortion free and its sharpness is outstanding at f8.

    "Maybe I'll have to rent all three and play for a day!" I think that is the best way to make a decision. I will go that route, too.

    Best regards,

    Timur

    PS: The Tokina 12-24 has so many fans out there. I guess because the Sigma is newer and less people know it...or because the Tokina is just that good. What do you think guys?
     
  16. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  17. dapeegoo

    dapeegoo

    28
    Feb 12, 2006
    Many people say the Tokina is on par with the Nikon 12-24, if not better.
     
  18. I picked up a 10-20mm this week at a stupidly low price as it was "used" - not that you can tell. No doubt the 12-24's would be a marginally better fit for the 28-70, but as I have the 18-200mm Nikkor as well I can live with that. This lens is SHARP, colours and contrast look good and the lack of CA is nothing short of astonishing. I was considering the Tokina beforehand, but think I'll be happy with this. The Nikkor 12-24mm does look over-priced to me.
     
  19. Build quality: the Tokina is metal, but otherwise on par with the Nikkor. Sigma felt pretty horrible.

    Optics: the copy of the Tokina I tried had some backfocus issues; as such wasn't able to do a proper test. The sigma had the famous sigma yellow cast; sharpness was okay but not on par with the nikkor.

    Accuracy of focusing: only the Nikkor got it right all the time; SWM is not for speed but for focus accuracy, and being able to move the elements just a little bit - this isn't always possible due to slop in the AF screw.

    My copy of the Nikon 12-24 is pin sharp at all apertures, focuses perfectly, has great color and contrast, but like most of the others, suffers from CA wide open at 12mm. It's not visible at f5.6 unless you're using a D2x/D200 body.

    Ming
     
  20. voider

    voider

    564
    Nov 11, 2005
    Hamburg, Germany
    Hi,

    I just ordered the Sigma 10-20. There was a great offer which I could not deny. Hopefully I will get the lens in 2-3 days. I was planning to compare the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 but I am sure that the Sigma is a good choice.

    @ Ming:I think the build quality is pretty good of the Sigma and don't see such an advantage of the Tokina.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Wide angle fast primes.. feeling conflicted Lens Lust Jun 18, 2017
Wide angle lenses. Lens Lust May 31, 2016
Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8 - pictures, info,... Lens Lust Mar 29, 2016
Ultra-wide lens for environmental portraits Lens Lust Dec 9, 2015
Wide Angle for shooting large groups Lens Lust Jul 28, 2015