Just curious about opinions and thoughts about Tokina 12-24 vs. Sigma 10-20 on a Nikon body. A friend is considering one of these opposed to the Nikon 12-24 due to the difference in cost. Any thoughts from those who have these lens or have used them?
The Sigma (original version, not the digital one designed for non full frame sensors) got outstanding reviews and the reviews were right. The first thing is that it works both on DX sensors as well as full frame. That worked great for me as I use it both on my Nikon D2X and the F5. The performance (again based on quantitative review results) exceeds the Nikon 12-24. The only advantage I see for the Nikon is that you can use filters. There are no filter possiblities with the Sigma. The front of the lens barrel is not threaded.
hobbes wrote:
Thanks Woody! It always helps when there's people around such as yourself to offer some insights that isn't in the sales brouchure.
-Hobbes
The Sigma 10-20 shows some mustache distortion in some samples I've seen, plus you get Sigma relatively yellow and somewhat drab glass. I've haven't been too impressed with the samples.
hobbes wrote:
Thanks Woody! It always helps when there's people around such as yourself to offer some insights that isn't in the sales brouchure.
-Hobbes
The Sigma 10-20 shows some mustache distortion in some samples I've seen, plus you get Sigma relatively yellow and somewhat drab glass. I've haven't been too impressed with the samples.
Uusilehto wrote:
What is moustache distortion anyway?
Some say that it's a mix of barrel and pincushion distortion. Personally I don't think it shows up in my pictures. But I can try to find extreme example and reproduce that effect for you. Here are some real life shots that I have taken with my Sigma 10-20 at 10mm.
To be honest I had this lens for a month but I didn't really have time to use it. Hack I got the slim CPL a month ago and havn't got to use it yet...
So, for your curiousity and for my own, I did some quick test.
The following shots are in 10mm, 12mm, and 15mm. Taken at largest possible aperture allowed by the lens, focus at cloest distance. The chart is the size of an A4 paper. The light source is a 60watt bulb in a otherwise totally dark room.
The paper isn't exactly 100% flat (especially on the right hand side) And because I am shooting at such close distance (10cm or so), it might appear as if the verticle lines are bent.
My tripod is in the truck and I am too lazy to go out in the cold to get it. I think I will reshoot those probably in the near future though.
At 10mm. Notice that the very right verticle line appears to be bent towards the inside, this is because that the paper isn't exactly flat over there, not because of the lens. At least I think that's the case!
What is more of a problem is that as you look closer to the corners, the distortion is rather mild until at one point it starts to have a very sharp and pronouced distortion. So, instead of a smooth arc, it's more like \____/
At 12mm, things get a bit tricky. It seems that the dramatic distortion around the corners are gone!!! It almost looks if they are perfectly straight lines. The left side of the picture looks a bit wavy, but agian I am not sure if it's because of the paper is not 100% flat or is it becasue of the lens.
At 15mm, they almost seem like perfect grids to me. Again because the paper is not 100% flat, it does seem a tiny bit wavy. I don't think it's the lens but I will have to comfirm that when I reshoot and perhaps with a larger chart so that I don't have to focus so closely.
There is an excellent review of these very wide angle lenses in www.Nikonians.com.
Although variations from sample to sample take place among the same lenses, they are more common with independent brand lenses due to less strict quality control. You could buy a sample that is outstanding and the next one could be less so. It also happens with OEM but not to such extent. Ernst Leitz and Carl Zeiss are very strict with their quality control and it reflects very well in the optical quality of their lenses.
I found the tests at Nikonians very interesting. They claim that optically the Nikkor 12-24 was the best but the Sigma did very well too, The Nikkor lens is not spectacular at 12mm where it also exhibited CA, like the Tokina. It is dynamite at the long end and flare is well corrected but its price is simply ridiculous. Obviously, its price and value will hold in the used market.
In general all lenses tested did reasonably well and according to them they will do the job. These type of lenses are hard to design and manufacture due to the large number of elements involved and the challenges of correcting aberrations, very typical of wide angles.
If money is no problem I would go for the Nikkor and if it is a problem then I would go Tokina. The Sigma did better than most in sharpness and control of CA but for my particular photographs I prefer a fixed aperture lens.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
