Sigma 10-20mm..any good for occasional pro use?

[tonymp]

Being a mostly MF neg film monochrome shooter for 30 years, I rarely shoot anything lower than equiv of 24mm (35mm & MF) .
However, have just got a D200 on the road to digital and need a decent 10-20 lens that will officiate in the occasional image. I doubt whether it will exceed maybe 200 or 300 finished images per year so it won't see much use but is there if it's needed.
What I'd like to know, from your experience, is the Sigma 10-20mm up to the job image-wise for monochrome prints up to 24" x 20" or would I be better going for the 12-24 Nikon...I don't want to see it gathering dust if the Sigma will do and would prefer to spend the extra costs of the Nikon on a couple of decent primes.
For the past three years I have been using prosumers as polaroiid substitutes for my neg film work so I am quite at home with digital.
Your thoughts about and experiences with the above lens appreciated.
Regards...
Tony

[cyclohexane]

Go for the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ($500) if money's an issue. It's equal to the Nikkor in most aspects except for flare performance, and I haven't seen a bad copy of the lens. This is my ultrawide option, and I love it. Feels nicer in hand than the Nikkor too,

The Sigma 10-20mm is a decent lens, but I've yet to handle a copy that's sharp on both sides.

[tonymp]

Hey up Cyclo, we meet again!!!
Ok, I'm open to advice, so I'll certainly look at it!
It's not a case of money issues, but over the years I've accumulated lots of great (and costly glass) that I rarely, if ever use!
All I need is a good quality image-giving lens around the 18-24mm ( 35mm equiv) region.
I'm just about to order the 28, 50 and 85mm primes and I just want the occasional image down at the bottom end, though it's not very often I'll use it and and it seems a waste to have a top end Nikon, doing virtually nothing for most of the year!
Tony

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Go for the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ($500) if money's an issue. It's equal to the Nikkor in most aspects except for flare performance, and I haven't seen a bad copy of the lens. This is my ultrawide option, and I love it. Feels nicer in hand than the Nikkor too,

The Sigma 10-20mm is a decent lens, but I've yet to handle a copy that's sharp on both sides.

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Go for the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ($500) if money's an issue. It's equal to the Nikkor in most aspects except for flare performance, and I haven't seen a bad copy of the lens. This is my ultrawide option, and I love it. Feels nicer in hand than the Nikkor too,

The Sigma 10-20mm is a decent lens, but I've yet to handle a copy that's sharp on both sides.

[cyclohexane]

All I need is a good quality image-giving lens around the 18-24mm ( 35mm equiv) region

Tokina 12-24mm f/4. Just don't point it into the sun. I played with it at the store briefly and ended up taking one home. When I get a chance I'll see if I have a nice sample image (haven't done much shooting with it, sadly) from it, but now I need to pack. =)

[rootrider]

how bad is the flare with the tokina 12-24?

I've been bouncing back and forth between the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 in my mind.. if I go wide I want to be able to go wide, but image quality remains a concern, obviously. However, most of my wide shooting is outdoors shooting outdoors for me usually means beautiful weather and sun. In your experience would you say that the 10-20 flared as much as, more, or less than the Tokina 12-24?

[cyclohexane]

I haven't pointed the Sigma 10-20mm into the sun, so I wouldn't know; I hear it flares somewhat less than the Tokina. One of the guys I shoot with has the 10-20mm (not quite sharp on both sides), so if I see him I can ask for you. I hear that it's a decent performer if one manages to find a good copy, but I haven't seen a hypothetical good copy in person, and neither has Julio/Nikonfreak.

Here's a handheld grab shot from the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 straight out of the D2HS (resized for web):




From what I've seen produced by the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4, the flare performance is close to if not on par with the 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S, which is the standard for flare performance when clean inside.

[rootrider]

I just had a chance to look at some images someone took with the 10-20 that showed some pretty major distortion at the edges. I suppose this should be expected, but the shots I really remember seeing from the lens up until now haven't shown distortion like this. What sort of distortion can you get out of the Tokina at the wide end?

[cyclohexane]

What you see right there in that photo, which isn't real easy to make out, LOL

Ken Rockwell, believe it or not, has one of the, IMHO, better distortion comparisons.. here.

[rootrider]

thanks.. I don't normally think to go to Ken Rockwell for these sorts of things

Obviously the 10-20 has some pretty ugly distortion at the widest end.. but it looks like it has some problems mid way through its zoom range too. Interesting.

This is the image that really got me thinking about distortion..
http://www.parazz.com/photos/08149464620_16155.jpg (the kids on the far left & far right)
While an extreme example, it's a pretty nasty bit of distortion, imo. Granted, the guy who took this photo has plenty more that look quite good, but since my typical 'wide' shots tend to produce some ugliness even at 18mm, it looks like the Tokina will have to be my choice for the ultra-wide.

Thanks

[cyclohexane]

I don't normally think to go to Ken Rockwell for these sorts of things

Heheheheh. He's got some funny pages comparing the boxes and lens caps too, but I was pleasantly surprised at his thorough look-over of all the ultrawides. I guess his usual self was turned off when he did those pages.

By the way, here's a group shot with the Tokina so you can see the stretching:

[rootrider]

hmm.... interesting.

I guess I'm asking too much for ultra wide zooms to not have distortion like that.

These are the type of shots where I'm worried about using an ultra-wide zoom and seeing distortion...




Those were both shot at 18mm with the 18-70..

[tonymp]

I started this thread and what has emerged for me is the excessive amount of visible image distortion with these lenses! I suspect that this will be just too much for my own use therefore my original point about about not shooting below 24mm ( 35mm format) still stands for me!
With that in mind, are there any decent variable FL lenses that will give me minimal distortion around the 16mm focal length (DX format)? The 18-70 kit lens isn't too bad but just a bit too long for what I want!
Tony

Originally Posted by tonymp

Being a mostly MF neg film monochrome shooter for 30 years, I rarely shoot anything lower than equiv of 24mm (35mm & MF) .
However, have just got a D200 on the road to digital and need a decent 10-20 lens that will officiate in the occasional image. I doubt whether it will exceed maybe 200 or 300 finished images per year so it won't see much use but is there if it's needed.
What I'd like to know, from your experience, is the Sigma 10-20mm up to the job image-wise for monochrome prints up to 24" x 20" or would I be better going for the 12-24 Nikon...I don't want to see it gathering dust if the Sigma will do and would prefer to spend the extra costs of the Nikon on a couple of decent primes.
For the past three years I have been using prosumers as polaroiid substitutes for my neg film work so I am quite at home with digital.
Your thoughts about and experiences with the above lens appreciated.
Regards...
Tony

[badpickev]

there is distortion in the 10-20 but of all the sample pics i have seen it was pleasing. the straightest ultra wide is the sigm 12-24

[Sidebyte]

If you want a good recommendation by example go to the landscape threads and look at Cedric's landscapes with the 10-20 Sigma. It appears to be accurate and the colors are super.