Any Sigma 10-20 EX owners on here??

[DJ Lazy]

Looking at picking this up next week.... 28mm just ain't wide enough, but I'm not looking to spend the 1G+ for the Canon version...

Just looking for some reviews... I went thru FM already, looking for more of a "in town" review..

[muse017]

Try ebay friend, you can get it for 600 max.

[DJ Lazy]

I can get it cheap in town... just wanted some reviews from Beyonders...

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Funny you should bring that up, I was wondering the same thing. I'm trying to decide on a getting the Sigma, a telephoto, or saving up for an 18-200VR. Ah, the decisions...

[DJ Lazy]

well i got the 28-70... and I NEVER used my 70-200, it such wasn't a style of shooting I did much of... I'm a close quarters shooter...

So a SWA is a MUST in my bag right now...

[clem24]

From what I read, the Sigma 10-20 is a pretty weak wide angle. You can't beat the Canon or Nikon (for Nikon owners) glass. Even the cheaper Tokina 12-24 can outperform the Sigma (though I am searching without luck, for a Tokina retailer in Calgary). It apparently has really weird distortion that is not easy to fix and bad CA, whereas the Canon 11-22 is more predictable. It's also not as sharp.

Sigma recently released a 12-24 that is almost $1,000. Not sure what is so great about that lens. For that price, I'd much rather buy Canon/Nikon, so there must be something special about it.

And BCS: good luck if you're saving up for the 18-200VR. If you haven't placed your order yet, then saving up will not do you any good cause you won't be able to get it even if you have $$$. It's a nice lens (I already put my name down - expecting POST xmas). I honestly think this is one of those "convenience lenses" for taking on a trip. I have a 80-200 2.8 and I am fairly convinced it won't replace it.

If you're looking for an incredible Canon lens, the 17-55f/2.8 IS USM is really hard to beat.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by clem24


And BCS: good luck if you're saving up for the 18-200VR. If you haven't placed your order yet, then saving up will not do you any good cause you won't be able to get it even if you have $$$. It's a nice lens (I already put my name down - expecting POST xmas). I honestly think this is one of those "convenience lenses" for taking on a trip. I have a 80-200 2.8 and I am fairly convinced it won't replace it.

I'm painfully aware of the waiting lists for the 18-200, but I'm quite sure Nikon will fill the list orders eventually. Probably around the time I scrounge enough on a my limited budget. The 80-200F2.8 is a fantastic hunk of glass (Tried one out last weekend, I've never felt AF that torqued before) but still more expensive than the 18-200 and I use wide-mid zoom more than I do telephoto. The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is in the same price range as the 18-200, and it's a rather tempting option.

[lint]

The canon really is worth the money, well if you can find it used for a good price. Performance is excellent, flare control is unreal, not even noticible with the sun in the frame.

Here's a rare Tokina 12-24 in CAN
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/437177

[boi-alien]

D'z has used the tokina 12-24 and he loves it.

I caved and bought the Nikon 12-24... gotta have the nikon glass =P

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by clem24
It apparently has really weird distortion that is not easy to fix and bad CA

I considered the Sigma 10-20 a while back as a secondary UWA lens I could keep on my IR body without needing to swap my Tokina back and forth. After a bit of reading around, these were the samples I saw that turned me off:

http://www.pbase.com/audible/image/48221495

and



That's some ugly ass distortion. Granted, it's very well possible the lenses used in these examples were bad copies, but even then a lot of people were commenting on it's poor image quality.

[clem24]

Hey where'd you get your Tokina from? Does ANYONE in Calgary actually sell these lenses? Anyone have samples from Sigma's new 12-24 and know why it's so expensive?

[lint]

Originally posted by clem24
Hey where'd you get your Tokina from? Does ANYONE in Calgary actually sell these lenses? Anyone have samples from Sigma's new 12-24 and know why it's so expensive?

Tokina does not have any authorized dealers in Can. I believe you have to purchase from the US or from someone who did purchase from the US.

I don't believe Sigma has a new 12-24 out, not according to the sigmaphoto site. But the cost may be due to the fact that it can be used on a FF camera and is the widest zoom you can get for a FF.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by clem24
Hey where'd you get your Tokina from? Does ANYONE in Calgary actually sell these lenses? Anyone have samples from Sigma's new 12-24 and know why it's so expensive?

I got it at B&H. Like lint said, Tokina has no authorized dealers in Canada.

If you're referring to the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, it's not new. It's been out for a few number of years. From what I've read, my impression that it's a pretty mediocre lens compared to the Tokina 12-24, Canon 10-22, Nikon 12-24. Sharpness and colour is supposed to be so-so. However, the only benefit of it is that you can use it on a FF body without any vignetting that the other mentioned lenses will give, the Sigma 10-20 included.

[clem24]

O I C. I guess that makes sense. Looks like I'll have to track down the Tokina elsewhere then. I think it's worth it to try it out before shelling out double the money for the Nikon.

[clem24]

Hey so I've been reading up on the FF Sigma 12-24. This seems to be a complete mixed bag. There was one site that said it was sharp all around, had very little CA, and almost no distortion (unlike the 10-20 with it's weird lines). The pictures were absolutely amazing.

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/R..._f4.5-5.6.html

Then in a different article, it was basicallly "skip it, soft all over". Can't remember article.

So has anyone here actually tried it? From all the samples I've seen, this appears to be a very good lens, especially if you can find a good used one (cheap). I also like the fact that it can be used wtih FF, which is just absolutely mind boggling.

[mr_ballroom]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...comparison.htm

[clem24]

Wow thanks. Unfortunately it says nothing about the Sigma 12-24. He just says it sucks, end of story. He likes to bash Sigma a lot, and calls them "budget lenses". Some are, but some aren't. Nikon also has their collection of budget/crappy lenses.

BTW, I've read most of Ken Rockwell's stuff. He's generally frank but he's also got some seemingly very biased articles in there. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but there's also a lot that he doesn't take into consideration (i.e. big aperture lenses are obsolete - just boost the ISO or use VR )

[clem24]

As an addendum to this post, I got an opportunity to borrow a Sigma 10-20 over the weekend. First off, this is a very impressive lens, I think. It seems to be a nice hunk of glass. Nothing about it really screams "cheap" to me. Second, although the tests show weird distortion in the lens, I find that in the real world, things like this don't really matter too much. It's not likely that you'll be shooting perfect horizontal lines all the time, and esp. with a wide angle like this one, you'll probably be shooting stuff at angles, etc...

That said, the 10-20 is quite a slow lens (it stopped down about 1/3 stop by the time it hit 12mm). Corners are maybe a tad soft, but just about every wide has this problem. In any case, I think this is a decent performer, and would probably be my first choice if it weren't for the existence of the Tokina (which I plan to pick up in Spokane this weekend if I can get it past the wifey... )

[C4S]

Just from my experience .. I love the Tokina 12-24 ..

From most test .. it rated as good as both Canon and Nikon one .. and for 2/3 the price ..

It is F4 all the way .. I love fixed focal ... I like it more then 3.5-4.5 or whatever ..

Another credit is, I can still use it on FF or EOS 1D, with 1.3x crop, if on FF .. then only 19-24mm range can be use .. which is still not bad .. on 1.3x .. I can use from 14-24mm .. which is still slightly wider then my 16-35 ..

My buddy just got his Tokina from BH .. $495 US .. + shipping .. tax .. duty .. app. $660 cad in total! good deal! Warranty may be an issue .. however, for Nikon lens, you need to send it back to Toronto for fixing anyway .. not much diff then send a lens to US.

[clem24]

It seems hard to find someone that actually has experience with the Sigma 12-24. Just about all of the sample pics I've seen seem to indicate that this lens is really the superior one out of all the other ones, plus it fits an FF, which just blows me away.

Even tests show this lens to have barely no distortion at all (which I believe is derived from the fact that it was designed for an FF since you're using the best part of the glass). It appears that you can also get this lens for a farily good price on eBay. So I think this Sigma might be the winner for me. The only downside is the gel filters.