Sigma 10-20mm

valshon · May 30, 2011

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.

Overread · May 30, 2011

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.

valshon · May 31, 2011

thanks overread that was really helpful. i'm leaning toward the 4-5.6 after reading the reviews.

djacobox372 · Jun 3, 2011

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.

Markw · Jun 3, 2011

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

valshon · Jun 3, 2011

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?

Markw · Jun 3, 2011

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

valshon · Jun 5, 2011

The tokina won't autofocus on my d5100 though. That's sort of a deal breaker

2WheelPhoto · Jun 6, 2011

valshon said:
The tokina won't autofocus on my d5100 though. That's sort of a deal breaker

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.

Markw · Jun 6, 2011

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