definitely... but do note he mean 10mm on a FF which will be 15mm field of view on DX, same goes as tokina 12mm>18mm
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 vs Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
- Thread starter mynameisjizeng
- Start date
- Status
Ah! Chey, i was like how can it be?... Thanks Mate! Anyway still confuse which one should i get.
Hey Mate, you have tested on both lenses ya. Is the 2mm different on the wide end a big different? is it very obverse?
Do anyone have any sample of images of the two lenses shot on the same location & on their widest angle?
It depends on your usage and personal preference, but to me, the 2mm difference is not insignificant and the main reason why I went for the Sigma. At 12mm, both lenses are nearly identical, but once you get to 10mm, the difference is quite noticeable. I'll try to post up some images of 10mm and 12mm when I have more time.
I got mine for $720 from Orient Photo last month, before the GST hike. Don't suppose prices would change too much..it's a grey set though, only has 1 year shop warranty.
Well guys, i have my choice on the 10-20mm. Reason been is because of the range & i already have a 17-35mm. so that should compensate the angle i can't cover. If i have a 28-70mm i may have chosen the Tokina 12-24mm. Both as u guys say Great lens!
Oh btw does anyone know what plug-in to remove CA in Photoshop CS2?
Oh btw does anyone know what plug-in to remove CA in Photoshop CS2?
i've met with a similar dilema at the moment.. i've looked at pics taken with both lenses on flickr and both seem awesome..
question would be whether the 2mm makes a signifcant difference.. Anyone of the big brudders here have pics at 10mm and 12mm?
will be looking to go try out the lens soon.. and kena further poisoning..
question would be whether the 2mm makes a signifcant difference.. Anyone of the big brudders here have pics at 10mm and 12mm?
will be looking to go try out the lens soon.. and kena further poisoning..
I own a 10-20mm...
while I think the lens is great for the extra 2mm, I sometimes regret the 4mm difference on the long end.
does make some difference especially in street scene.
and the constant f/4 is a big bonus.
To those in dilemma, ask yourself if you will be shooting street often in dim condition whereby u need the constant f/4. If yes,get the tokina. The sigma's only merit is in the slightly wider view. But that also is cut back by its shorter tele end and non constant aperture.
If I have the choice to start all over again, I would take the tokina 12-24 over sigma 10-20mm
ps. the peeling problem of the EX series is quite a big minus point as well . Mine has peeled a little somewhat. maybe less than 1mm in diameter, but still I am not too happy about it. Tokina's build and finish is superior.
while I think the lens is great for the extra 2mm, I sometimes regret the 4mm difference on the long end.
does make some difference especially in street scene.
and the constant f/4 is a big bonus.
To those in dilemma, ask yourself if you will be shooting street often in dim condition whereby u need the constant f/4. If yes,get the tokina. The sigma's only merit is in the slightly wider view. But that also is cut back by its shorter tele end and non constant aperture.
If I have the choice to start all over again, I would take the tokina 12-24 over sigma 10-20mm
ps. the peeling problem of the EX series is quite a big minus point as well
. Mine has peeled a little somewhat. maybe less than 1mm in diameter, but still I am not too happy about it. Tokina's build and finish is superior.Hey mate,
Posted this question, in the end i tested both lense. both are Awesome. its a kind of chicken & egg thing, i can say its non-debatable. Why?? Ok if i prefer to have a wider end then Sigma is for you, the 2mm is quite obvious. But on the other end the Tokina give an extra 4mm on the max range. And there its obvious different then the Sigma in the max end.
Its up to u which end you prefer to have more.
Why i choose Sigma is because i prefer its wider range than Tokina. if you prefer a more zooming range than the Tokina is for you.
i currently own a tokina 24-200, 50mm f1.8, kit lens for 400D and am looking at WA which i seem to be wanting to shoot more of..
i will try out both lenses and probably weigh the pros and cons.. you guys here have stated them very clearly.. thanks for that!! will update..
BTW.. a lil OT bit where did you guys buy yours?
i will try out both lenses and probably weigh the pros and cons.. you guys here have stated them very clearly.. thanks for that!! will update..
BTW.. a lil OT bit where did you guys buy yours?
while i am still learning to shoot in UWA, i do think at 10mm will be able to get the whole roof (on the top right hand side) into my picture on this sample below..
24mm, yes, advantage if you want to take a group pic without too much background..
constant F4 is useful, dont have to think too much abt aperture but it is definitely NOT enough for dim conditions.
ps. the peeling problem of the EX series is quite a big minus point as well
to comment on this, yes its true tokina's built is superior, i bought this lens 2nd hand from another CS-er who upgraded to FF, he somehow had managed to 'chip off' a small area (maybe about 0.5cm?) of paintwork near the lens mount area.. essentially, its the end user on how he/she handles his/her equipment..
when I shoot with Ultra Wide Angle Lens, I look for the widest lens.
But angle too wide may make composition a bit difficult also :sweat:
But angle too wide may make composition a bit difficult also :sweat:
I'm looking for a Tokina 12-24. Would like to venture in to landscape and architectural photography. I'm definitely sold on Tokina lens. Reputable.
Sorry for the sidetracking WTB posting. hehehe!
Thanks!
Regards,
Kenneth
Sorry for the sidetracking WTB posting. hehehe!
Thanks!
Regards,
Kenneth
Alrights Mates!
Tokina, true. their build quality they are very good. a bit sharper as well.
Dun worry abt the peeling issue that Sigma "used" to have. They have bring in with a better coating now.
Sigma- if you want more wideness, this lens is for you. V low CA.
Tokina - if you need a longer end, this lens is for you. Sharper but high CA. Can be easily be corrected from PS or NX capture etc, if your shots is in RAW.
More cash to spend - Needless to say, Nikon 12-24 Overall the best for Nikonians, have tested its quality, build & contrast. Superb.
Tokina, true. their build quality they are very good. a bit sharper as well.
Dun worry abt the peeling issue that Sigma "used" to have. They have bring in with a better coating now.
Sigma- if you want more wideness, this lens is for you. V low CA.
Tokina - if you need a longer end, this lens is for you. Sharper but high CA. Can be easily be corrected from PS or NX capture etc, if your shots is in RAW.
More cash to spend - Needless to say, Nikon 12-24 Overall the best for Nikonians, have tested its quality, build & contrast. Superb.
Hello surflim, just wondering if you were also looking at Tokina 10-17mm when you were evaluating the different WA lenses? I used the Tokina ATX-287 for many years and it never failed me. Thus I'm quite tempted to get either the Tokina 10-17mm or the 12-24mm. Any sharing of the 10-17mm experience would be much appreciated.
Isn't 10-17 a fisheye? Fisheye very different from UWA, in my book.
I bought the 10-20 a few weeks back, love it.
I bought the 10-20 a few weeks back, love it.
- Status
Similar threads
