Sigma 10-20mm v. Nikon 10-24mm

[fjrabon]

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.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

This is no great shock! Photozone reviewed the 10-24 from Nikon and said they felt as if it had been forced down to 10mm! Basically Nikon had the 12-24 and ofcourse Sigma stole alot of sales due to the fact they had a 10-20 and it being alot cheaper ofcourse, even Thom Hogan chose the Sigma over the Nikon purely due to the fact he could use 10mm. So Nikon realised they had to compete, but well its quite obvious it was a rushed plan. The Nikon 10-24 is amazing at most settings apart from as you say the 10-12mm range. Photozone feel the 10-24 offers very little value for money compared to the third party options and I trust their reviews. My Sigma 10-20 is a great lens, I would like the extra 4mm at the long end though.

 

[trizzo]

Thanks for comparison. Finally I decided to buy Sigma.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S running Android ICS 4.0.1

 

[fjrabon]

This is no great shock! Photozone reviewed the 10-24 from Nikon and said they felt as if it had been forced down to 10mm! Basically Nikon had the 12-24 and ofcourse Sigma stole alot of sales due to the fact they had a 10-20 and it being alot cheaper ofcourse, even Thom Hogan chose the Sigma over the Nikon purely due to the fact he could use 10mm. So Nikon realised they had to compete, but well its quite obvious it was a rushed plan. The Nikon 10-24 is amazing at most settings apart from as you say the 10-12mm range. Photozone feel the 10-24 offers very little value for money compared to the third party options and I trust their reviews. My Sigma 10-20 is a great lens, I would like the extra 4mm at the long end though.

Yeah, really though the weird thing was that the Sigma wasn't just comparatively stronger at 10mm than the Nikon, that was actually the Sigma's strongest point. You get better images at 10mm than you do at 12mm, which to me was very counterintuitive. I guess I'm used to most zooms, where the sweetspot is usually in the middle. With the Sigma, this seemed inverted. It's strongest points were at either end of its range and the middle was weak. I felt that the sigma actually wasn't particularly good at 14mm, it was serviceable, but that's it. Basically it came down to do I care more about 12-18 or 10-12? I sided with caring more about 10-12.

I also didn't feel that the Nikon was necessarily bad at 10-12, it just wasn't awesome there either. If I hadn't seen the Sigma at 10mm, I probably would have been pretty happy with the Nikon's performance at 10-12mm. But seeing it in comparison to the Sigma, it was hard to turn down what the sigma was giving me at 10mm and f/8-f/14. Sunset colors and contrast like you wouldn't believe. I'd be very happy to pay what the Sigma costs if it was just a 10mm prime and gave me those images at 10mm. Everything else with the sigma is just an added bonus.