Sigma 10-20mm

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by valshon, May 30, 2011.

  1. valshon

    valshon New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    I'd appreciate any assistance on determining the differences between the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM or the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM. I understand the aperture difference and the advantages to the fixed 3.5. My question is more along the lines of build quality and glass quality. The price difference is $170 and I"m wondering if the 3.5 is a better lens in any ways other than being able to shoot in lower light and/or at a higher speed.
    I have a Nikon D5100, btw.
     
  2. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    21,049
    Likes Received:
    3,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    UK - England
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +3,184 / 1
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    There is a comparison review here (which also lists a good number of the other wide angle lenses on the market - but not the 8-16mm from sigma which was not out at the time)
    Juza Nature Photography
    and a review here:
    Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM - Review / Test Report


    All in all when I did the research myself I found that most sites rated the new as being superior overall, but mostly because of its constant wider aperture. The image quality, performance and build were all very similar in spec to the original - in addition the larger filter size of the f3.5 version had some not jumping for it. Overall though its an improved version, but its not a night and day difference to the original version.

    Edit - typically if low light is the key aim then the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens is the one that most go for since it offers the widest working max aperture of all the superwide zoom lenses on the market. It does however also offer the shortest focal range coverage as well - which is one detracting feature.
     
  3. valshon

    valshon New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    thanks overread that was really helpful. i'm leaning toward the 4-5.6 after reading the reviews.
     
  4. djacobox372

    djacobox372 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +129 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    With an ultra wide you will never achieve a very narrow dof, nor do you often require a very fast shutter-speed as you can handholds shots as low as 1/12th of a second.

    So I don't really see the point of paying extra for the faster version. I usually shoot my ultra wide shots at f8 or higher, where the performance of both versions is identical.
     
  5. Markw

    Markw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Although what djacobox says is true, don't let that distract you from the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8. I believe that lens is by far the best on the market for distortion and most other technical aspects. Its build quality is astounding and it is just an amazing lens. You will use it at 11mm most of the time, I'm sure, since that is why you are buying an UWA after all, so the constricted focal range doesn't really matter all that much. If you have a mid zoom (18-50, etc), missing the 17mm mark isnt all that crucial. The lens is beautiful and deserves some serious consideration. I went from the 10-20/4-5.6 to the 11-16/2.8 and would never turn back. I'm surprised that no one mentioned that the 10-20 has terrible distortion on the wider end around the corners of the frame. It's quite bad. It does, however, have superb focusing speed and silence as well as sharpness. The Tokina has a slight sound, but is just as fast and sharp, or even sharper.

    Mark
     
  6. valshon

    valshon New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    I'd love to hear more comparisons between the tokina and sigma if anyone has anything to share.
    Markw, what body are you shooting with and do you think I would have similar results on my D5100?
     
  7. Markw

    Markw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    I shoot with the D300s. I would assume you would get similar results with the D5100, yes.

    Digital Wide Zooms <- just Ctrl+F Tokina and you'll see what I mean.
    Tokina 11-16mm

    Mark
     
  8. valshon

    valshon New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    The tokina won't autofocus on my d5100 though. That's sort of a deal breaker
     
  9. 2WheelPhoto

    2WheelPhoto New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,850
    Likes Received:
    995
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +995 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    I used mine on my D5000 in manual mode for quite sometime, it was never a big deal. I suggest you don't let that stop you from enjoying the lens. On my new D7000 I still manually focus my Tokina in low light anyway.
     
  10. Markw

    Markw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    The tokina will focus fine in low light. UWAs aren't very hard to focus. Anything above F/7.1, usually everything is in focus anyway. Your call. :thumbsup:

    Mark
     
  11. djacobox372

    djacobox372 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +129 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    manually focusing a wide angle lens is not much of an issue. The DOF is extremely forgiving.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
80/200mm f3.5/f4 sigma
,
difference between sigma 10-20mm 3.5
,
does the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 go on d800
,
need a sigma 10-20mm in tulsa
,
nikon d5100 sigma 10-20mm
,
sigma 10-20mm
,
sigma 10-20mm d5100
,
sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 at seattle wa
,
sigma 10-20mm for nikon d5100
,

sigma 10-20mm nikon d5100