Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 or Tokina 11-16mm 2.8?

[Nikon_Josh]

Have to say I think you guys are right, the Tokina is the better buy.+1 i think this wide angle will replace my sigma eventually,but i don't think the distortion makes the 10-20 unusuable as it was put. Distortion can sometimes be a great effect if you ask me, specially in architectual photography. And I personally have never found the distortion of the Sigma to mean that I end up throwing away 85% of my shots. My only point is sometimes the word Distortion is made out to be a Cardinal sin in a lens, distortion sometimes makes a photo more interesting in my opinion. And this is a view held by quite a few pros I have spoken too.

When I say distortion, I don't mean the perspective distortion, as in things look deeper/longer/wider, etc. As a 10mm would make a 10x10' room look like a cathedral. All UWA will do that, and that's the exact reason why most people want them. I mean arond the edges. If you have a scene with alot of people, and you are looking at them at eye level, about 15-20% of the total edge amount will be "stretched" to the point that it looks like their heads were made out of playdough and were pulled on a little too much. Vertical lines will have a terrible bend to them on either side, horizontal lines will do the same on the top and bottom. It's quite bad, I'd say. I think I cropped it out of all my remaining samples, but I'll try to find a memory card around here someplace with some examples on it to show you.

Ah OK Mark, I understand the point your making now. I sometimes wonder if people sit there dreaming that an UWA will be created with zero distortion, I like a bit of perspective distortion. But as you say the Sigma distortion is on the point of being brutal!

Have to sayy, the 8-16 sounds like a fascinating lens. 8mm is 12mm which is seriously seriously WIDE on a DX/APS. I still can't quite believe you can get a lens that goes this wide!