Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Tokina 12-24 f4 or Sigma 10-20mm f3.5?

  1. #1

    Tokina 12-24 f4 or Sigma 10-20mm f3.5?

    Hi all,

    Well I've just purchased my D90 together with 18-200mmVRII,
    yet to get my hands on it, should arrive tomorrow .

    Now I had planned on getting a another couple of lens to make up my kit.

    I'm after something I can use for family shots which will be of a 2yr old and a new born
    due in Sept. Can handle low light indoor stuff, nice DOF with decent bokeh characteristics.

    I also want something that can be used as a good landscape lens.
    Reason being, we're heading to Kununurra in a month and will do an overnighter
    at the bungle bungles! woohoo sunset/stars/sunrise opportunity.
    Should be fullish moon around that time too.
    Plus we will do a 30 min chopper flight around the rocks as well, will prob be between
    mid morning and lunchtime.

    I have narrowed my choices down to either Tokina 12-24 f4 or Sigma 10-20mm f3.5
    from the samples I have seen and what I have read.
    Can't afford too much so I need to compromise.
    f3.5 and f4 seem a good start for what I want to do.
    f2.8 would be nice in the 11-16 Tonkina but not enough range for my liking and I think I'll
    be disappointed and wanting more.

    I'd prob preffer the Sigma 10-20mm as it will give me that wider end.

    So any advice on my choice or have I totally missed the mark!


    I'm also looking at a 35mm f2.8
    50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 (twice the $) to finish of my range of glass
    and that will be it for a fair time!

  2. #2
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    6,352
    I'm a bit apprehensive about the f/3.5 version of the Sigma lens!

    While I fully appreciate that clinical unrealistic lens tests such as those performed by Photozone don't truly reveal a lens's ability to make a picture, my lenses seem to conform to their test results and so I believe that PZ is as accurate a lens guide as any other.

    having said that, their results with the Sigma 10-20/3.5 look very dissapointing!(@ 10mm mainly)

    Quote from PhotoZone:
    At 10 mm wide open, there's hardly more than a mushy blur, even stopping down does not help to lift the resolution to good figures.
    At least with the f4-5.6 version of this lens, as you stop down the lens at 10mm, the extreme border IQ is in their very good range from the results I get with mine.

    Compare them at 10mm and the performance with the faster lens doesn't really make this a very good landscape lens.

    the 0.5 f-stop(1/3) faster aperture of the f/3.5 lens is barely worth noting at the short end, and while at the long end it may make a difference, being 1 1/3 stops faster than f/5.6. I can honestly say that at that focal length, I prefer the much faster Tammy 17-50/2.8 and at f/2.8 anyhow!

    ie. in the end you're going to need to know which lens is going to be more appropriate for the shooting conditions you're going to be confronted with.

    I know if I'm in dim lighting situations, I forgo the very very wide FOV that the Siggy allows and use the Tammy instead.. but when light is plentiful or if tripod and slower shutter is appropriate then the Siggy is always the primary choice(stopped down to f/8-f/16).

    AFAIK, the Tokina 11-16/2.8 beats them all, and being an f/2.8 lens is the most natural choice.

    I found your comment that the (focal)range of the Tokina is it be limiting, kind'a funny

    Do you regularly find yourself taking only a single lens when you're out shooting?

    If you had the Tokina @ 11-16 and the Nikon @ 18-200mm it basically allows you a focal length range of 11mm to 200mm with only an insignificant single point of 17mm missing(technically 16-18 non inclusive) but I highly doubt that you;re going to miss the gap in focal length range.

    What you will enjoy tho is the 1-2 extra stops of light having a f/2.8 lens.

    For me.. given the choice now..... now that I know what's available and what will be available in the immediate future...

    I'd take the f/2.8 of the Tokina forgo the 10mm focal length for the 11 of the Tokina too.

    Sales of the new Siggy Uber Wide Angle lens are only just starting to filter through into the US.. the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6. This lens is the APS-C equivalent of the 12-24mm for full frame, and I'd definitely be on the very interested list for that one.. even though it;s currently selling for US$1100!
    (it'd better be a damned good lens for that kind'a money too!)

    In your situation ... I'd go with the Tokina 11-16 or the Siggy 10-20 f/4-5.6 for both value for money and or speed.

    NOTE: my only concern with the Tokina is the AF-D type focusing system.. ie. not AF-S type(or HSM type for Sigma). In low light there are many times when I just manually set my Siggy 10-20 because focusing in dark is sometimes impossible.. due to either lack of light or contrast.. or whatever.
    The fulltime manual over ride of the hypersonic motor system is so much more user friendly than the (now) silly AF-D screw driven system, where you have to clumsily change a switch either on the lens or on the camera to manually override the focus system. Shots can be missed due to that screw driven system!
    Also note that the problem with the Siggy f/3.5 lens is that the extreme corners are extrememly bad to appalling in quality. if you're doing some kind of event photography, where the extreme border IQ may not be vitally important, it may actually work well, as centre-mid frame performance is good to excellent(according to PZ's results). It's only if you want to rely on this lens for detailed landscape work is where you may be disappointed a little.

    Also note: there is a generally unspoken code of conduct ... when you purchase a UWA lens, you usually want to use it at it's widest settings. I reckon I can't count on one hand the number of times where I've used my Siggy 10-20 at longer than 14mm. That's because at approx 15-16+mm, I don't find it to be a convincing lens.. or more accurately.. as convincing as the Tammy 17-50, lens is at 17mm. I don't see the Tokina's 11-16mm focal length as limiting, only because history dictates that most people will almost certainly use it at it's widest settings anyhow... it's just human nature at work.. you bought a wide angle.. you want to use it as a wide angle!

    anyhow.. just some thoughts
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    steamy's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Apr 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    50
    quick to reply and great advice to match
    thanks again

    You know up until now I was considering the Tokina 11-16 f2.8!
    I just thought that I would want to have a bit more zoom on hand.

    I've gone through pages of images from this lens on pixel-peeper
    and have basically liked what I see.

    I just presumed the Sigma 10-20 being at f3.5 would give me good good results
    going by the good reports from the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6!!! go figure eh.

    So I'll now go off and have a squize at the Siggy 10-20 f/4-5.6 and see how
    sample pics come up as I still like the idea of the 10-20 range.

    It's all new to me as I'm coming from that Fuji S100fs which had 28-400mm f2.8-5.3 35mm equiv' and I also had a 0.43x wide adaptor that I sometimes chucked on the front
    for some extra wide shots.

    By the way, what does that equate to? Adding a 0.43x on a 28mm (35mm equiv).



    thanks again

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Although adding to price a little I love the extra range that the Nikon 10-24 gives. When carrying the whole bag around, as Arthur indicates I'm usually using it at the wider end however have taken it out on it's own several times and find that range to be adequate as a walkaround lens.

    I rented it for a weekend before buying, and I am now a big advocate of that practice (i.e. try before you buy).

    As far as the decision between the 35 and 50 goes, try taping your 18-200 at 35mm and take it out for a day, then next time tape it to 50mm. That should make the decision fairly easy as I don't think that there is too much between them in terms of performance.

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular rellik666's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,831
    As an owner of both the 18-200 and the 12-24 Tokina. I would suggest waiting and see how you go with the 18-200mm alone before looking at the uber wide lenses.

    The 12-24 is a great lens....(the 2.8 wasn't around when I got mine I don't think) but I tend to use the 18mm end of the VR for most landscapes, the 12-24 is a great lens for uber wide close ups and the focal distance in quite small and makes some great shots......

    12mm

    18mm

    24mm


    Roo
    Call me Roo......
    Nikon D300s, Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX, Nikkor 50mm 1.4 Af-S, Nikon 18-200mm VR, Nikon 70-200VRII 2.8, Sigma 105 Macro, Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, Tokina 12-24mm, Sb-600, D50, Nikon 1.7 T/C, Gitzo CF Monopod

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter
    steamy's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Apr 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    50
    cheers
    but I like "uber wide" (-;
    the 18mm of the Russian Blue is that from the 18-200?
    I'd say from the 12-24 as that's what I have queried yes!


    cheers
    Last edited by steamy; 30-04-2010 at 2:12pm.

  7. #7
    I recommend you for Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 too. Good for low light photography. But Tokina 12-24 sound very good too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •