My apologies if this has been done before, but I will be in the market for a wide angle lens in the New Year and these two keep coming up on searches that I do on the net etc
Clearly there is a slight price difference and I wondered whether it was worth spending more on the 12-24 or not.
I'd really appreciate any suggestions - advice - comments people have.
I like my Sigma 10-20mm Nikon mount. For me, the extra 2mm was important as was the price because I couldn't afford the Nikon 12-24mm. I got this lens specifically for landscape. I'm happy with my choice.
One suggestion: you could buy used and make up your mind. Most of my lenses are used MF lenses, my Sigma is the only new lens that I have bought.
If you have, or are likely to get, a full-frame camera then the 12-24 is the better option as it is designed to cover the full-frame area. The 10-20 is not so will, at the least give significant vignetting if not completely blacked-out corners.
If, on the other hand, you are sticking to cropped sensor cameras, then I would say the 10-20 is the better choice. It also has the advantage that it has a filter thread so front-mounted filters are not a problem.
I owned the 10-20 and really liked it. Ended up selling it after going full-frame. I still havent found a 17 for my full frame that I liked as much as the 10-20. It has a nice signature sun flare:
jpeter wrote:
I owned the 10-20 and really liked it. Ended up selling it after going full-frame.
i'm wondering: does the 'vignetting' of the sigma 10-20mm ever go away on a full frame? is it usable from a particular focal length, or totally not possible at all.
jpeter wrote:
It can't be used with a full frame. EF-s mount.
Only Canon makes EF-S lenses. The crop-oriented 3rd party lenses all use EF mount and simply don't cover FF at all/some focal lengths (Same goes for the Nikon, Pentax and Sony crop-oriented lenses btw)
Again, thanks for the comments. My main concern for the 10-20mm is where I have heard people say the quality control is not so good and eventually after replacements they got a decent one??
Will I have to go through the "taking back & replace" process or will I be lucky and get a keeper. Is it worth the stress and would I get this also if I simply spend a little more on the 12-24mm?
magyarangol wrote:
Again, thanks for the comments. My main concern for the 10-20mm is where I have heard people say the quality control is not so good and eventually after replacements they got a decent one??
Will I have to go through the "taking back & replace" process or will I be lucky and get a keeper. Is it worth the stress and would I get this also if I simply spend a little more on the 12-24mm?
Decisions decisions!
QC was a huge issue when this lens was new. It's a mild one now, Sigma's QC is worst of the major brands, but not much worse than Canon's.
