Looking to buy a landscape lens - Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24?

J

John.D

Suspended / Banned
Messages
335
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Hey all,

I'm looking to buy my first serious landscape lens, and have my eye on the Sigma 10-20 which i've heard great things about, or the Tokina 12-24 which I have also. I currently own a 400D with the 18-55 kit lens and the nifty fifty.
I've seen the Sigma 10-20 second hand for 300, which sounds like a good deal, but is the extra cost for a Tokina 12-24 worth it? I don't want to spend too much more if I was go choose the Tokina, so I think I would only purchase that one if I found it second hand.

Was just looking for opinions!
 
Don't understand the hero-worship the 10-20 gets, it's really not all that great a lens and the build quality is a coin flip...

I'd rather have (and probably will unless a find a Nikon 12-24 first) the Tokina.
 
Is the build quality that bad? I've used a Sigma 50mm lens at uni, and found the build quality very good, but obviously the same dosn't apply?
 
There are "issues" with some 10-20s being soft down one side, some people have no problems though. Every other Sigma lens I have or have had has been fine though, I just wasn't all that impressed with the 10-20 and mine was a good copy.
 
tokina is a great lens :) looses about 10 degrees of of the wide end *** (i think... remembering from a review) so if really really wide is what you want... sigma may be best... but in IQ the tonika wins hands down...
 
I'll just chip in and say that I really don't consider either lenses landscape lens per se.

Unless you have a really strong compelling foreground, and a really nice sky, and decent near-middle-far subjects, very often a ultra wide angle lens in the last thing you need for landscape work.

They are nice lenses, but you can end up with very forced compositions, because with everything so w-i-d-e you need to have lots of interest in the frame...

I'd definitely pick the Tokina, I prefer it to the Sigma optically, and it by far the nicer lens in the hand.
 
John.D said:
Hey all,
I've seen the Sigma 10-20 second hand for 300, which sounds like a good deal, but is the extra cost for a Tokina 12-24 worth it? I don't want to spend too much more if I was go choose the Tokina, so I think I would only purchase that one if I found it second hand.
Click to expand...

On fleabay the Sigma seems to go for more than the Tokina - £300-£320 v £260-270.

I got a Tokina and the build quality is very impressive - more like my old Pentax lenses I had in the 35mm days, even though it has a plastic body rather than metal.

I haven't handled a Sigma so can't compare it. Digital Photo mag last month rated the Sigma higher than the Tokina in image quality and gave it the Gold award in their wide angle zoom test, although that seems to go against other tests I've read.

It does make me wonder whether I should have gone for that extra 2mm!
 
I haven't used the Sigma however have owned the Tokina; it's a cracking UWA lens, excellent optics and build quality.
 
puddleduck said:
I'll just chip in and say that I really don't consider either lenses landscape lens per se.

Unless you have a really strong compelling foreground, and a really nice sky, and decent near-middle-far subjects, very often a ultra wide angle lens in the last thing you need for landscape work.

They are nice lenses, but you can end up with very forced compositions, because with everything so w-i-d-e you need to have lots of interest in the frame...

I'd definitely pick the Tokina, I prefer it to the Sigma optically, and it by far the nicer lens in the hand.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.!7mm/18mm + lenses are usually more than adequate for landscape.I have a Sigma 10-20mm which I use almost exclusively for getting up really close to subjects when the lens comes into its own.
 
The best lens you need is actually a tripod. The kit lens works very well as a landscape lens when stopped down to F8.
 
John.D said:
Is the build quality that bad? I've used a Sigma 50mm lens at uni, and found the build quality very good, but obviously the same dosn't apply?
Click to expand...

It's not bad a ssuch, just not as good as the Tokina. My 12-24 compares well with an L lens, where as the sigma 10-20 compares more to slightly better than the kit lens (and nowhere near my Sigma 24-70).

f1charlie said:
On fleabay the Sigma seems to go for more than the Tokina - £300-£320 v £260-270.

I got a Tokina and the build quality is very impressive - more like my old Pentax lenses I had in the 35mm days, even though it has a plastic body rather than metal.

I haven't handled a Sigma so can't compare it. Digital Photo mag last month rated the Sigma higher than the Tokina in image quality and gave it the Gold award in their wide angle zoom test, although that seems to go against other tests I've read.

It does make me wonder whether I should have gone for that extra 2mm!
Click to expand...

I don't know what lenses you had with your Pentax but the 12-24 is actually a joint venture between Tokina and Pentax, with the Pentax 12-24 and Tokina 12-24 being identical optically (which is why you can't get the Tokina for Pentax mount). Incidently Pentax sell their lens for around £600-£700!
 
Thanks for that Nick, I must admit though i've been using the kit lens for 4 years at least, and just wanted a change for when I go to Cornwall in a couple of weeks. I'm now tempted more toward the Tokina, if I can find it at around the same price (onestopdigital have it 345, much better than about 600 on WarehouseExpress! Anyone have any experience with them?)
I've been reading through this http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-angle.htm , and i'm really not keen on the very tilted horizon line in one of the images for the Sigma, although I know that's what to expect with a wide angle. It also says the Sigma is unusable on a film camera, and seeing as I am a uni student, I will no doubt be using it occasionally on my film camera, even though I know that's not what it's designed for.
I'm just worried that the Tokina won't be much of a difference from my kit lens at 18mm. An image in that article with the Sigma really shows how much a difference the extra 2mm makes though! (i'm on about the shots of the house on one of the first pages)
 
Be careful with onestopdigital. I believe that it is either a Hong Kong or USA company, whereby you may well change import duty on the lens. Kerso seems to be the most competitively priced, with excellent feedback from most people.

I bought the 10-22 Canon lens for the same reason as you. Loved the Ken Rockwell review, and bought it before Xmas. Sold it recently for £20 less that I bought it for. Ended up not using it enough, and put the cash towards something else.
 
One stop is a Hong Kong company, but they used to (assume they still do) guarantee no tax (by sending it as a replacement with my CPL I got from them).

Last time I checked Kerso didn't do Tokina or Sigma lenses?
 
puddleduck said:
I'll just chip in and say that I really don't consider either lenses landscape lens per se.

Unless you have a really strong compelling foreground, and a really nice sky, and decent near-middle-far subjects, very often a ultra wide angle lens in the last thing you need for landscape work.
Click to expand...

I would kinda +1 this. I hired a Canon 10-22mm from lensesforhire recently.
Initially whilst using it, I found that I was actaully favouring 20mm as it was so much easier to get an interesting shot. I had to force myself to think and use the 10mm end. It makes mountains extremely small.
If you like sky shots, then 10mm is great.
Otherwise, I think (and this is where I had a problem) you need to get your camera down to around 20cm in height in order to get much of a foreground/middle-ground interest. I found a lot of my shots felt more like they were hand-held at head-height, due to the perspective the wide-angle gives. This was on the 400d,
 
puddleduck said:
I'll just chip in and say that I really don't consider either lenses landscape lens per se.

Unless you have a really strong compelling foreground, and a really nice sky, and decent near-middle-far subjects, very often a ultra wide angle lens in the last thing you need for landscape work.

They are nice lenses, but you can end up with very forced compositions, because with everything so w-i-d-e you need to have lots of interest in the frame...
Click to expand...

:agree: - an I own one [10-20], but find it much more useful for architectural shots than out and out landscapes. Far better landscape range seems to be from about 15-30mm [on a cropped sensor]. The 10-20 pushes everything away from you, so as said, unless you have some really interesting foreground features, its less than perfect. Having said that, for those low angle [near the ground] shots that include close by and distance and sky, they are very good indeed.
 
Thanks for the advice, i'll take it under consideration. I might be going ahead with the 12-24, i've heard good things about it and have always wanted to try a wide angle. Will need some more time to think. These are the kind of shots I like http://gilad.deviantart.com/art/A-slice-of-life-64298703 , and http://solkku.deviantart.com/art/Line-of-Fire-45023876 for example, rather than the large open, sweeping cliffs and fields kind of shot. These seem to have been shot with wide angle lenses.

Is there anything else recommended for landscape stuff? I'm heading to Cornwall in a couple of weeks so want to be prepared :) I have a Redsnapper tripod, a Cokin ND and ND Grad filter, i'm also considering the BW 10 stop filter for some creative stuff, i'm keeping an eye on a couple of sites for there next orders to arrive as everywhere has sold out of them! I hear polarizers can come in useful?
 
(a note about onestop digital, I swear by them... they are brilliant! very good prices, and never had a single bit of trouble with imports, ive ordered 6 lenses off them, and am about to do a 7th...very highly reccomended (delivery was actually quicker than when i brough a lens from jessops:P)
 
Doh, I sound silly now. My point about onestopdigital was to check up on companies that you have not bought from before. Sounds like from others that it is a reputable place to buy from. I've had problems with other companies in the past.
 
nickwatson said:
Doh, I sound silly now. My point about onestopdigital was to check up on companies that you have not bought from before. Sounds like from others that it is a reputable place to buy from. I've had problems with other companies in the past.
Click to expand...

You had a sound point, I only bought a CPL from them (although almost bought a lens) because I had heard good things about them, and even then I would think twice aout getting something more expensive from them.:)
 
I absolutely love ultra-wide angle lenses for landscapes and have taken plenty with a Canon EF-S 10-22mm and 40D - mostly at the wider end too.

Most of these landscapes were shot with this combination. It's only more recently that I'm shooting with a 5D and 17-40mm.

Obviously, it's subject to personal preferences, but I just 'fell' into shooting landscapes with ultra-wides. I think I'd go crazy if I couldn't go below 24mm on full-frame.
 
Hi, I went ahead and purchased the Tokina 12-24. It was a tough choice but the Tokina won very slightly :) Also bought a BW 10 stop filter, fingers crossed it'll arrive in time for my holiday.
 
youtube the sigma. 1 guys reveiw impressed me unfortunatly i fell for a 17 - 40 l glass instead

love it

dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top