Cannot decide between Nikon 10-24 or Sigma 10-20 (3.5)

emmaleephotography

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hey guys!

I have been going back and forth between these two lenses for months on end and cannot make up my mind! (Nikon 10-24 & Sigma 10-20 3.5)
I have found the Nikon version for 500 bucks on a local kijiji and the Sigma for 400. So not that big of a difference price wise. I have read so many forums and articles, that I have run out of opinions to read! :( So here is my dilemma.
From my research I have seen that the Sigma is cheaper, better in low light (3.5), sharper wide open and less CA. I have seen that the Nikon is a little soft around the edges at 10MM but has better results across the board and of course has an extra 4MM to work with. (and is nikon glass if that counts?)

Currently I am using a 18-200VRII and mostly use it at 18MM unless I see wildlife and then use it at max 200MM. I guess my question, after I have rambled on is how important is the extra 4MM?

I feel like I would like to have the extra 4MM but I am also prefer to have a very nice sharp image as I am printing up to 30x45.

Thank you for any advice you can give :)
 
If your looking for ultra wide zoom don't cross off the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or the 11-20 f/2.8. Very well built and very good lens. I have the original 11-16 f/2.8 which requires body with focus motor. But the 2nd version 11-16, and new version 11-20 have af motors in them. Even though I have gone full frame with my last 3 new cameras. I still have my original 11-16 f/2.8 (version 1). Built very well, feels like a Nikon.
 
I'd likely go for the Nikon in this case. The 4mm is probably handy if not critical, and you do lose 2/3rds approx of a stop at the long end, but generally with wide angle lenses you aren't using them to much open fully unless at a concert or event. You'll probably find by f5.6 or f8 the image quality of the two lenses are pretty much identical.

Nikon lenses will save you on any compatibility issues going fwd if you get a more modern body. Sometimes third party lenses can be troublesome here
 
Thank you! I never thought about compatibility with the D7100 that I have, good to know. I think I will grab that Nikon.

I'd likely go for the Nikon in this case. The 4mm is probably handy if not critical, and you do lose 2/3rds approx of a stop at the long end, but generally with wide angle lenses you aren't using them to much open fully unless at a concert or event. You'll probably find by f5.6 or f8 the image quality of the two lenses are pretty much identical.

Nikon lenses will save you on any compatibility issues going fwd if you get a more modern body. Sometimes third party lenses can be troublesome here
 
Hey guys!

I have been going back and forth between these two lenses for months on end and cannot make up my mind! (Nikon 10-24 & Sigma 10-20 3.5)
I have found the Nikon version for 500 bucks on a local kijiji and the Sigma for 400. So not that big of a difference price wise. I have read so many forums and articles, that I have run out of opinions to read! :( So here is my dilemma.
From my research I have seen that the Sigma is cheaper, better in low light (3.5), sharper wide open and less CA. I have seen that the Nikon is a little soft around the edges at 10MM but has better results across the board and of course has an extra 4MM to work with. (and is nikon glass if that counts?)

Currently I am using a 18-200VRII and mostly use it at 18MM unless I see wildlife and then use it at max 200MM. I guess my question, after I have rambled on is how important is the extra 4MM?

I feel like I would like to have the extra 4MM but I am also prefer to have a very nice sharp image as I am printing up to 30x45.

Thank you for any advice you can give :)
Hey, emmalee!

From my perspective, you are getting hung up on rather insignificant details instead of considering the (IMO) more important aspects of lenses. Yes, resolution can be important, but I sincerely doubt if you would ever miss those extra 4mm of "reach", especially in a wide zoom.

Instead of fretting over 4mm, try looking at (considering) the overall image quality of each lens. How does each lens render color, depth, resolution (you already have begun to evaluate that) and contrast. You can view sample images shot with each lens to help you evaluate those qualities.
 
The Nikon will have significantly better resale value if that is an issue.
 
The Nikon will have better color and micro contrast if I recall correctly. When I was shooting Nikon, I was looking at those ultra wide zooms for tractor shows. I kept going back to the Nikon for the color and contrast, very slight but noticable. Then there is the chance of getting a wonky focusing Sigma.
 
Have you considered the new Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5? (2017 version)
I have been wanting this lens for a while now, but currently I have no budget for camera gear. I actually got an old tokina 12-24 now for €150 and it is ... ok. I had a tokina 11-16 F2.8 before (first version), and for IQ it, was a lot better then the 12-24 I have now, but I wanted a more walk-around lens, so 16mm was to limited... but still.. I regret my choice ^^.
one day the tamron... one day...
 

Most reactions

Back
Top