lens debate

[goodoneian]

a while back i sold my 18-200 vr and bought the 10.5mm nikkor fisheye. while i'm happy with this trade, i discovered quickly that this lens has extremely limited use which kind of sucks now since it just sits in my bag.

now i'm thinking about selling this on craiglist for what i payed for it, and buying the sigma 10-20mm new off of b&h since i've had my eye on it for a while. i know a decent amount of you have this lens, and what i'm wondering is does it at all compare to the 12-24 f/4 nikkor in terms of image quality? i'm really hoping it does, since i don't want to spend 900 dollars or dx glass now since i'm sure fx will be in my future. i know there are many threads about this lens but i don't recall anything comparing it to the nikon 12-24 at all. if there is though, i apologize

thanks

 

[JerryPH]

Ok, don't take what I am about to tell you overly harshly, but... you really need to settle down and stop running around like a chicken with it's head cut off... lol

I mean, going from lens to lens to lens and making mistakes left and right and you STILL don't have what you want... all because of a simple situation... YOU do not seem to know what you want!

Selling that 18-200 was the first mistake (the best walk-around lens ANYWHERE), and then buying a fisheye (the least used and most specialized lens in existence), and now you're looking to make mistake #3.

You mention FX (automatically triggers the words "high end camera" in my head) and then in the same paragraph mention F/4 (a relatively SLOW lens). Totally wrong choice and wrong mindset, IMHO.

Slow down! Decide what you EXACTLY want, do the research and make a choice, budget for it and STICK to it.

If you are looking at an FX body in the future, and are serious about it... DON'T buy lower quality lenses now. Matter of fact, if FX is in your future, don't buy lower quality lenses *ever*. If that means needing to budget longer for it... that's fine. I budgeted several months to get the 85mm F/1.4 because I knew I was going to get a FX camera as well.

- define your photographic needs
- find products that match those needs
- research each one out
- find the one that best fits you.
- budget for it
- STICK to your guns
- purchase and enjoy it

As far as the 10-20mm Sigma is concerned:
- It is a slow lens
- It is a very wide lens
- It is expensive, but gives some really nice results
- It is also a very limited usage lens (all fisheye and ultra-wide angle lenses are!)

Before going for the "exotics", get your basic focal ranges covered... the ones that you will use from day to day. The 20-70 range is the range most used and hence likely the most important for the majority of photographers. Once you are covered in that area, go up or go down and wide... but for heaven's sake, my friend, don't lay out another penny until you have a clear direction set in your head. :mrgreen:

 

[goodoneian]

Ok, don't take what I am about to tell you overly harshly, but... you really need to settle down and stop running around like a chicken with it's head cut off... lol

I mean, going from lens to lens to lens and making mistakes left and right and you STILL don't have what you want... all because of a simple situation... YOU do not seem to know what you want!

Selling that 18-200 was the first mistake (the best walk-around lens ANYWHERE), and then buying a fisheye (the least used and most specialized lens in existence), and now you're looking to make mistake #3.

You mention FX (automatically triggers the words "high end camera" in my head) and then in the same paragraph mention F/4 (a relatively SLOW lens). Totally wrong choice and wrong mindset, IMHO.

Slow down! Decide what you EXACTLY want, do the research and make a choice, budget for it and STICK to it.

If you are looking at an FX body in the future, and are serious about it... DON'T buy lower quality lenses now. Matter of fact, if FX is in your future, don't buy lower quality lenses *ever*. If that means needing to budget longer for it... that's fine. I budgeted several months to get the 85mm F/1.4 because I knew I was going to get a FX camera as well.

- define your photographic needs
- find products that match those needs
- research each one out
- find the one that best fits you.
- budget for it
- STICK to your guns
- purchase and enjoy it

As far as the 10-20mm Sigma is concerned:
- It is a slow lens
- It is a very wide lens
- It is expensive, but gives some really nice results
- It is also a very limited usage lens (all fisheye and ultra-wide angle lenses are!)

Before going for the "exotics", get your basic focal ranges covered... the ones that you will use from day to day. The 20-70 range is the range most used and hence likely the most important for the majority of photographers. Once you are covered in that area, go up or go down and wide... but for heaven's sake, my friend, don't lay out another penny until you have a clear direction set in your head. :mrgreen:

well i do get what you're saying haha. i don't think selling the 18-200 was a mistake for me though, since i had it for 6 months and put it on my camera like three times because i was always using my 17-70mm which i could use happily day to day for basic shooting. i'm very satisfied with the length that it reaches and it's fast enough for me at f/2.8, and i have the 50 f/1.8 if i need anything faster for whatever reason. sometimes i wish i could go wider though, which i can with the fisheye but it isn't always "appropriate" and completely reversing the fisheye makes it look pretty undesirable to me.

and as far as fx goes i mean who knows when i'd ever even upgrade that, i was just throwing it out there. and i have used the 10-20 before and was impressed with it, i just couldn't test it in any kind of environment i'd use it in.

what i really mean to ask though is the 12-24 worth double the price? the fact that it's constant f/4 is nice, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me since the only low lighting situations i'd be using it in i could easily use flash without a problem.

 

[Chewbecca]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm. I do not have the 12-24mm, though.
I like my Sigma 10-20mm.
But I also like my fisheye lens.
I cannot even IMAGINE selling my fisheye. In fact, I cannot even imagine selling ANY of my lenses. Sure, a lot sit in my bag, hardly used, but I have not sold them. And I don't plan on it.
I am going to MAKE my fisheye work for me.
I'm challenging myself to a month of shooting with ONLY my fisheye. Yeah, I'll see what I can do with it. I may not do much, but I'm going to see how well acquainted with this lens I can get.

Good luck on your search for the perfect lens!

 

[JerryPH]

what i really mean to ask though is the 12-24 worth double the price?

Not to me personally, no. Now if you asked me about the Nikkor 14-24, that's another story, but then again, it is also double the price of the 12-24... lol

the fact that it's constant f/4 is nice, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me since the only low lighting situations i'd be using it in i could easily use flash without a problem.

You will find out fast that lenses this wide will most definitely show incredible amounts of light fall-off on the sides. The lens can capture angles much wider than most flashes can light evenly.

Wide angles are fun, but far from practical. Rather than pay $900 for the Nikon, I would get the Sigma for $430. However, be sure that this is a lens that you will use before investing. Better to put the money into something that you will use rather than to pay, look at it for a few weeks, and then put it on Craig's list and lose money on it in 6 months again.

 

[djacobox372]

Keep in mind that DX will work on an FX camera just not at the optimal resolution... BUT resolution is going up at such a rate that I doubt it will matter much longer.

 

[andrew99]

Before you sell the fisheye, there is software that will unroll the fisheye photo and turn it into a regular super-wide photo, which might make this lens a lot more usefull for you. Rockwell talks about the software a bit:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105fe.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fisheye-hemi.htm

 

[JerryPH]

I've seen pics done with that software in the past. It does add a dimension of usage to a fisheye, but 180 degrees of view is still 180 degrees of view... lol

 

[goodoneian]

Before you sell the fisheye, there is software that will unroll the fisheye photo and turn it into a regular super-wide photo, which might make this lens a lot more usefull for you. Rockwell talks about the software a bit:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105fe.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fisheye-hemi.htm

i've used that before, but it only seems to work correctly for me if the subject is centered in the frame or else it gets all weird looking and more distorted. i would show an example but i uninstalled the trial i had for that

 

[kundalini]

I doubt you will find many here that own both the Nikkor and the Sigma at the same time to give you a fair comparison, unless of course, they work in a camera shop. I bought into Nikon for Nikkor lenses and have the 12-24mm f/4. It is an outstanding lens for me. I don't use it as much as I did when first purchased, but it goes where my bag goes.... just in case.

 

[andrew99]

i've used that before, but it only seems to work correctly for me if the subject is centered in the frame or else it gets all weird looking and more distorted. i would show an example but i uninstalled the trial i had for that

Yeah, I know the type of distortion you mean, I get the same thing on my Sigma 10-20, especially if people are near the edges of the frame. But I thought maybe that software could correct it. Oh well.. Too bad you weren't closer to me, or I'd make an offer on the lens!

 

[DRoberts]

What type of photos are you going to be doing with which ever lens you get? Do you have a specific purpose for it? You already have a good "everyday" lens with the 17-70.
I would suggest defining what you want to do and going to a local camera store, not a "Best Buy" type store but a real camera store. Explain to them what you need and ask for their advice and a chance to take a couple of shots with those lenses, and compare and decide for yourself.
The reason I say this is, you will get a true comparison straight out of the camera with no PP. Another reason is that 9 times outta 10 when you ask a question like this on a forums sight, you will get so much useless info (as to your actual question) that you rarely have enough to make an informed decision.
Good luck with your research and purchase.

 

[McQueen278]

I wouldn't worry too much about the f/4 max for lower light situations. I have a Canon 17-40mm f/4 that has a circular polarizer attached to it 90% of the time and I rarely find a situation where I can't brace myself a bit and get sharp hand held pictures at the 17mm end down to 1/10. I should add that I use this on a full frame camera so the focal length is similar to both the 10-22 and the 12-24 on your camera. Take several of the same shot and pick the sharpest one. Wide lenses are slightly more forgiving in this respect.

 

[manaheim]

I use the Sigma 10-20 a lot for my work as it's basically the widest lens you can get for the Nikon line without going to fisheye. It's a very solid performer and I'm very happy with it. I do find that you have to occasionally manual focus it if anything is further than 20' away and is very brightly illuminated, but even with that small limitation, it's great. (and to be honest, I'm being MASSIVELY picky... the focus just winds up being a HAIR off sometimes...)

I did some reviews of "like" wide angles when I bought this six months or so ago, and to be honest, I think the Sigma was overall the best lens of the bunch... not even in just a price/performance perspective... it was just a simply better lens than it's competitors. It remains the only Sigma lens I have... all my others are Nikkors.

BTW, keep in mind you can RENT lenses to try them. I recommend this. You can also find people who have the lenses you are looking at and try them. I'm carting around an 80-200 2.8 right now from a buddy of mine... I borrowed the Sigma 10-20 from another friend before I bought that. Very good idea to try one or both of these.

It does strike me as odd to ditch the 18-200, it is a super handy lens, but clearly the 28-70 you have (or whatever) is a very solid piece of glass... the 18-200 wouldn't compare optically to that thing.

Hope this helps. good luck!

 

[goodoneian]

unfortunately where i live there's only one camera shop (ritz) and to my knowledge they don't rent anything, seeing as they don't even carry more than like 5 lenses. since i'm pretty interested in some kind of ultra wide though i think i'll go down to san diego sometime soon and find a camera shop there and rent something for a day, and if i like whatever i test out i'll make a decesion on purchasing one.

as far as the 18-200 goes, i mean yes it covers a pretty broad focal range obviously, but i really don't think i used it more than 5 times over a span of around 6 months. and whenever i used my 17-70 i never found myself wanting more range out of it. it was a good lens but it just didn't suit my needs.

i've bee doing a lot of "research" on the 10-20 and am pretty impressed from what i've seen, but the 11-16 tokina seems like it could give it a run for it's money. the fact that it's f/2.8 is nice, but what makes me think it may be a better choice is that it has less distortion and is sharper(though a tad bit more expensive). i'd really like to test out both though.

on another note, anyone from san diego in here know of any good shops that might rent these lenses?