Tokina 12-24 vs Sigma 10-20

Monkey

Monkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,254
Name
Craig Denton
Edit My Images
Yes
Whats peoples opinions on these, which is best.

Im Hiring a Nikon 12-24 this weekend, but i cant afford to buy one of them so looking at one of these instead.

Which has the best IQ, not too botheres about the 2mm difference at the bottom end
 
I'm a big fan of the Sigma - the build quality is excellent, and I'm on my 2nd 10-20mm now (sold the first one last year - almost instantly regretted it!!)
 
Monkey said:
whats it like at the wide end.... is distortion ok at 10mm
Click to expand...

Distortion is what you would expect from 10mm. Unfortunately because of Sigma's QC problems with this lens, you can't guarantee a good one straight off. Be prepared to take it back to the shop if it's not quite sharp enough.:|
 
Personally - having owned and shot with both extensively....

DSC_5452-fs.jpg


I could show your nice shots from both, but the Tokina produces "nicer" shots, better colours, more contrast-y, and sharper. Thats not to say I've not got nice shots with the 10-20.. but in a push... the Tokina wins.

Just my opinion - from someone who has owned both, so there is no bias here
 
I have the Tokina and I too love it, better built than my other sigma lenses and as sharp as they come. I vote Tokina.
 
Have a look at the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 just new out awesome got mine from Bristol cameras for £380

Check out Ken Rockwells review he says its better than the 12-24 nikon
 
Owned one sigma 10-20 and tried 2 others and all three were softer and colours were flatter than the Tokina 12-24 I now own. I'd go with the Tokina every time.

Tried them both on Canon 300d, 400d and 20d the results were consistently in favour of the Tokina.
 
neil_kman said:
Have a look at the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 just new out awesome got mine from Bristol cameras for £380

Check out Ken Rockwells review he says its better than the 12-24 nikon
Click to expand...

Pah, it's only for little cameras. Would have liked to swap the nasty sigy 12-24 for something a tad less ambitious and more sharp.

Oh well, superwide zooms are all the work of the devil really.
 
Got my Tokina 4 months ago and love it, its the sharpest lens I own. Plus the fact that it is pretty fast and has better contrast than the sigma with a much more durable finish.
 
neil_kman said:
Check out Ken Rockwells review he says its better than the 12-24 nikon
Click to expand...

I'm quite dubious of Ken's reviews - he's made some really crackers comments, but I've also seen some great shots from the new Tokina 11-16.

I can't see me going full frame any time soon, but in case I do, it would be good to see what my ultrawide options are (I think the Sigma 17-35 would probably do the trick though).
 
Does anyone know how the Tokina 12-24mm compares to the Nikon 12-24mm ?
 
Hmm Decisions Decisions,

Looking at The 12-24 either Nikon or Tokina or Sigma 28-70 F2.8

Can't quite make my mind up.
 
Well, look at it this way - getting an UWA will allow you to shoot things you can't currently because of the increased field of view. But. . . if you get the Sigma 28-70 (or 24-70, or 24-60, or 18-50 ;)) f/2.8, will allow you to shoot more flexibly in lower light, and get tighter depth of field.

PsiFox said:
Hmm Decisions Decisions,

Looking at The 12-24 either Nikon or Tokina or Sigma 28-70 F2.8

Can't quite make my mind up.
Click to expand...
 
Better start considering the 17-50mm tamron too :D
 
Sigma 10-20mm QC would appear to be behind them these days - not heard about any new problems recently. The Sigma 10-20mm is a good lens, as is the Tokina, and the Tamron. The Canon and Nikon versions are definately better, but far more expensive. Personally, I would be happy with any of the 3 lenses mentioned., but I bought the Sigma!
 
An added bonus for the Sigma for Canon users, is that if you upgrade to a 1.3 crop camera (i.e. 1D, 1DM2, 1DM3), you can still use it :D (albeit from 11-12mm)
 
The Tokina 11-16mm is better than the Nikkor 12-24mm.
 
My issue is do I want the low light capability or the extra width!! and I can't decide
 
If you're thinking that 12-24 may be wide enough, how about the Sigma version? Works on 35mm film bodies as well, so should be OK on FF digital too.
 
To be honest, f/2.8 isn't all that hot for low light - if you want to shoot low light, get yourself a fast prime - the 50mm f/1.8 is a good one to start with (whatever brand your camera is) as it's pretty cheap, and normally gives the best bang for buck for any lens.

PsiFox said:
My issue is do I want the low light capability or the extra width!! and I can't decide
Click to expand...
 
Already got the nifty fifty.

I'm leaning towards the width but there is a nice 28-70 going at present.
Need to sell someting if I go for the 11-16 or 12-24.

Got an 18-55 I no longer use and a Nitro RC Monster Truck I don't play with so.........
 
From my perspective, my 10-20 is a fun lens, but it doesn't get all that much use. I'm seriously considering trading it in so I can get a Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
 
So what is a very good wide angle lens for a Nikon full frame camera, thinking ahead now with the D700 in mind :thinking:
 
I have the Sigma 10-20mm and it is a fantastic lens, however it took 3 attempts to get a good sample.
The first two both front focused, that was a couple of months ago, so Sigma's QC is still an issue.
 
tel48 said:
So what is a very good wide angle lens for a Nikon full frame camera, thinking ahead now with the D700 in mind :thinking:
Click to expand...

How wide do you need to go? There's the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, which is a cracker, or the more budget priced Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-f/4. For insanely wide angle, you could go with the Sigma 12-24.
 
Especially their quality control
[I was in the business for many years, trust me..:suspect: ]
 
I have my own way of checking Sigma QC - all my Sigma lenses have been secondhand :D.
 
tel48 said:
So what is a very good wide angle lens for a Nikon full frame camera, thinking ahead now with the D700 in mind :thinking:
Click to expand...


The Sigma 12-24 is pretty much the only affordable option - the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 is almost 3 times the price! (And the Nikkor 12-24 is Dx). Check on the Nikon site for a list of current primes - there are some Sigma primes too.
 
goatee said:
How wide do you need to go? There's the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, which is a cracker, or the more budget priced Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-f/4. For insanely wide angle, you could go with the Sigma 12-24.
Click to expand...


10-20MM OR 12-24MM for landscapes, which will fit on a full frame camera ie D700 or D3.
 
Well then, as Nod said above - the only affordable option is the Sigma 12-24. Wow, that will be insanely wide (though I guess I get a similar field of view (13mm) with my 10-20 on my 1.3 crop 1DM2)
 
tel48 - The sigma 10-20 is not compatible with full frame cameras. Sigma 12-24 is compatible with FF.
 
Just bringing this one back to the top again, How have people got on with the Tokina in the end just got one from ffordes for 249. After reading a lot about the build/picture quality against the Sigma is what swung me in the end.

Any thoughts from owners
 
Having owned both lenses, unless I really needed the extra 10mm I personally think the Tokina has nicer IQ, just a bit sharper and more contrast-y.
 
Thanks Duck I did see your earlier post and I am glad you are of the same opinion.

Looking forward to getting it as headed to Glen Etive for a camping trip this weekend
 
Bruce120 said:
Thanks Duck I did see your earlier post and I am glad you are of the same opinion.
Click to expand...

Can't remember posting that, let alone in the same thread!

Well, at least I'm consistent :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top