Here's a test shot taken with the Tokina 12-24 F4 on my Canon 10D. I just purchased it over the sigma and am testing the quality. I have highlighted the difference between the 12mm and 28mm zoom on my other lens (Tamron 28-75 DX)...
I just got the Tokina 12-24; the 50% bump up in price for the Canon was the major reason I didn't go with Canon. F5.6 on the Sigma was just too slow for general purposes. I don't have experience with the other lenses but so far the Tokina is a fair replacement for my Canon 20mm f2.8. The Tokina appears to have more CA than the 20mm but also appears to be sharper. I'll post samples after I shoot a presentable test subject.
The sigma 10-20.
10mm wide
built like a tank
included case and hood
HSM lightning quick focus
feels well balanced and the right size on my gripped 300d
very good value and a very reasonable price
.
Thats all there was to it for me.
I had the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 and took it back to the shop and exchanged it for another non UWA lens.
The problem was the huge barrel distortion at 10mm. when set to 11mm or more, the lens would show mild, acceptable barrel distortion. I orifinally wanted to swap the lens for another copy but in the shop they checked the other lens they had in stock and the all showed the same thing on a canon digital.
The repair agent had a theory that the problem was because of the difference in crop factors between brands. The sigma UWA is the only 10mm UWA available that will suit all brands where as canon's own 10-22mm only suits canon apc-s cameras. The agent wanted to compare images (brick wall type shots) from the canon/sigma and compare it to a nikon/sigma combo and see what the difference is.
I would be interested in seeing other peoples sigma 10-20mm @ 10mm and see if they also show the same barrel distortion characteristics which from what I have seen so far, are very different to the other uwa's out there.
I want to get the tokina now as I simply cannot justify the $1,200 aus price tag of the canon for the extra width over the $800 aus tokina.
edit: I should also mention that I noticed that the canon kit lens was quite a lot sharper than the sgma lens on centre crops. The sigma was at 17mm f4.5 versus the kit lens at 18mm f4.5. I guess the sigma 10-20 I had must have been a bad copy and maybe the kit lens I have is a good one?
Edited by Asmodeous on Sep 08, 2005 at 01:41 PM GMT
I purchased the Tamron 11-18mm, based on several favorable reviews that seemed to echo the same points - solid build (nothing exceptional, but solid all the same), good performance wide open, sharp stopped down, decent corner sharpness, no vignetting, excellent flare control and good CA control. I've found it to perform accordingly. I didn't take any test shots of brick walls so I can't tell you exactly how good or bad the barrel distortion or pincushioning or whatever is, but I haven't noticed any obvious flaws, and it's allowed me to get shots that I wouldn't have gotten before, and it gives very nice results to my eye - and that's good enough for me.
stefimke wrote:
Does anyone have complaints about huge distortion of the Sigma 10-20 on a Canon 1.6x, especially between 10-12mm?
Are you sure you are talking about lens distortion? Or perhaps, what you have seen is merely the natural appearance of things viewed with an ultra-wide angle.
I don't yet have one, but, after playing with one, I want the Tokina. Built as well as the Ls, with optical quality to match. Extremely sharp and a big plus, is the contsant f/4. Variable max aperture make me nervous. If the Tokina would be the same price as the Canon, I would still get it. A clear winner. For me, at least.
Peleng 8mm Fisheye, cheap and nasty to operate, but images are sharp (centre anyways) and good colour. Used to own and Sigma 15-30mm, sold it because I never liked the colours it produced and the images weren't great even when stopped down.
The Peleng is small and walking it around with the Rebel XT is a treat - street people don't realise that they'll be in the photo...
20Dshooter wrote:
I don't yet have one, but, after playing with one, I want the Tokina. Built as well as the Ls, with optical quality to match. Extremely sharp and a big plus, is the contsant f/4. Variable max aperture make me nervous. If the Tokina would be the same price as the Canon, I would still get it. A clear winner. For me, at least.
Variable max aperture doesnt bother me a bit......90% of the time it is at 10mm on the sigma, and it is f4 there. The only times i ever use the rest of the range are if I dont want to swap lenses or move.
The Sigma 12-24 is the only one of the group that will work on FF cameras (digital or film). While it may not be as sharp wide open, if you stop it down, it performs very well.
The Canon rectilinear 14mm L is a ton of money for a relatively poor performing lens IMO. I've shot with a friend's 14L at a wedding and was very disappointed in the sharpness, or lack of sharpness from such an expensive lens. It's also way out of this guy's price range. He mentioned the 10-22 being too expensive so I doubt he'd want to pay 3x that much for the mediocre 14L.
I've owned the Canon 17-40L (2 copies), 10-22 (2 copies) and the 20-35L and have shot with a friend's 14L, 15 fish and 16-35L. In my personal experience, the 10-22 performed equally well to the 17-40L in my testing. I wound up selling one of the 10-22's and the 17-40L. YMMV.
stefimke wrote:
I was referring to the complaints Asmodeous has, a few posts up.
Ive been checking around other forums and at pbase and haven't seen any other shots with the same barrel distortions traits I was getting with mine, though surprisingly, shots with this lens seem to be pretty rare.
Im quite convinced now that the copy that I had was faulty. I think somebody mentioned that it's focus group was out of alignment.
