fjrabon
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,644
- Reaction score
- 757
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
So, I rented a Sigma 10-20mm to run a comparison between the Nikon 10-24mm I was trying out today. Here are my comparisons:
at 10mm and stopped to f/8 or smaller, the Sigma was better. It wasn't like ground breakingly better, but it was equally sharp, had better saturation and contrast. Around f/11 and the sigma was completely blowing the Nikon away
at 10mm and f/4-f/6 it was a pretty even draw by all measures
from 12mm-15mm Nikon was substantially sharper. Also, Nikon had better colors and contrast at the more open apertures, whereas the Sigma had to be stopped down to f/11 before the colors really popped.
From 18-20 They were a dead heat, more or less indistinguishable. Zoomed way in, the Nikon was sharper, but not to a degree that you'd ever really care about in real life situations.
It's weird, because while the Nikon's weakest point was 10mm, that was actually where the Sigma was strongest. WHich, to me is a clear advantage to the Sigma. THe Nikon was far more consistent throughout the entire range, but to me the reason I'm buying an ultra wide is 10mm. Since the Sigma's better there, I'll probably go with it.
THe Nikon also didn't need to be stopped down as much, but since I'll be using this mostly on a tripod, and mostly shooting big f stops for landscapes, that isn't as big of an advantage to me as it could be for the Nikon.
In the end, I felt like for what I wanted, the Sigma was actually slightly better. But that's because I want to shoot landscapes at 10mm, with high f stops on a tripod. If you need to shoot at lower f stops, off a tripod, and want to shoot across the entire focal length range of the lens frequently, the Nikon is overall much more consistent and better.
Equally priced I'd be really torn. The versatility of the Nikon was outstanding. Just about any setting you put it at you got great images. Whereas the Sigma seemed to be built for 10mm-12mm and 19mm-20mm and kind of threw 13mm-18mm just for the heck of it. This Sigma also has issues with low f stop numbers, whereas the Nikon was mostly fine throughout it's aperture range. It hit it's sweetspot around f/8, like most Nikons do, but wide open was perfectly fine. However, when the Sigma popped from f/8 to f/11, it really popped.
It basically comes down to a few things 1) price, the Sigma is much cheaper 2) consistency, the Nikon is much more consistent across both the focal length range and the aperture range and 3) strengths, the Sigma was mind blowing at 10mm stopped down to f/11, blew the Nikon away.
at 10mm and stopped to f/8 or smaller, the Sigma was better. It wasn't like ground breakingly better, but it was equally sharp, had better saturation and contrast. Around f/11 and the sigma was completely blowing the Nikon away
at 10mm and f/4-f/6 it was a pretty even draw by all measures
from 12mm-15mm Nikon was substantially sharper. Also, Nikon had better colors and contrast at the more open apertures, whereas the Sigma had to be stopped down to f/11 before the colors really popped.
From 18-20 They were a dead heat, more or less indistinguishable. Zoomed way in, the Nikon was sharper, but not to a degree that you'd ever really care about in real life situations.
It's weird, because while the Nikon's weakest point was 10mm, that was actually where the Sigma was strongest. WHich, to me is a clear advantage to the Sigma. THe Nikon was far more consistent throughout the entire range, but to me the reason I'm buying an ultra wide is 10mm. Since the Sigma's better there, I'll probably go with it.
THe Nikon also didn't need to be stopped down as much, but since I'll be using this mostly on a tripod, and mostly shooting big f stops for landscapes, that isn't as big of an advantage to me as it could be for the Nikon.
In the end, I felt like for what I wanted, the Sigma was actually slightly better. But that's because I want to shoot landscapes at 10mm, with high f stops on a tripod. If you need to shoot at lower f stops, off a tripod, and want to shoot across the entire focal length range of the lens frequently, the Nikon is overall much more consistent and better.
Equally priced I'd be really torn. The versatility of the Nikon was outstanding. Just about any setting you put it at you got great images. Whereas the Sigma seemed to be built for 10mm-12mm and 19mm-20mm and kind of threw 13mm-18mm just for the heck of it. This Sigma also has issues with low f stop numbers, whereas the Nikon was mostly fine throughout it's aperture range. It hit it's sweetspot around f/8, like most Nikons do, but wide open was perfectly fine. However, when the Sigma popped from f/8 to f/11, it really popped.
It basically comes down to a few things 1) price, the Sigma is much cheaper 2) consistency, the Nikon is much more consistent across both the focal length range and the aperture range and 3) strengths, the Sigma was mind blowing at 10mm stopped down to f/11, blew the Nikon away.