Sigma 10-20 vs. Tokina 11-16 vs. Tamron 10-24

Hi

I have the Sigma 10-20 at the moment and use it for landscapes, hollidays and indoor pictures.

When walking around in cityes, I often find the Sigma to short (I have the Nikon 17-55 as well but that's often not wide enough for this). Therefore I was thinking about getting the Tamron 10-24 as it has a little more range and also a larger aparture. Have anyone tried this lens yet? Or even seen a review?

On the other hand the Tokina 11-16 and it's f/2.8 aparture fits perfectly below my 17-55 and 70-200. The Tokina on Canon mount got a really good review at Photozone and the f/2.8 aparture is very tempting to me, so I also consider this lens very strongly!

I like the Sigma, but I feel that one of the new offerings by Tokina and Tamron will be better for me. I'm going to miss the HSM though.

Any thoughts? I'm sure other is/have been in my situation lately.

First don’t stress over the possible loss of the HSM vs the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. On my D80 the focus speed was so close I’m not sure which one was faster. The screw drive of the Tokina is not a quit as the Sigma but it is pretty good compared to my other screw drive lenses.

I’m not a lens tester by any means but will tell you what I thought about the difference of the Tokina & Sigma I tried out. The Tokina possibly a little sharper overall but it was very close. At the edges the Tokina was slightly sharper and had a little less light fall off. At f2.8 it was a little soft but sharpened up at f4. On the two samples of these lenses I had sharpness was very close @ f4.

For me they are both very good lenses and close in performance. So it was the slower variable aperture of the Sigma vs the shorter range of the Tokina and the 1mm additional wideness of Sigma is noticeable to me. I went with the Sigma for the addition range but this will vary based on your usage and preferences.

This was before the Tamron came out so I have no input on that lens.

--
Snapshott

If you find the 10-20 too short, you'll find the 11-16 about 4 mm shorter. :> ) Really, it's a glorified 2.8 super wide prime more than a zoom. It's a very nice sharp lens, and I put it to good use with my 16-85 in photographing architecture and church interiors in Italy. However, the range is very limiting. If you're looking for something with more range than your 10-20, then your obvious choice would be Tamron (or possibly a 12-24 if you don't mind giving up a little at the wide end. The 2.8 max. is nice though.

Alan

Siena Cathederal 11mm, f2.8, 1/25, ISO 1600

I don't want to give up the HSM either. Also the front element is sealed against water, which I found out my Tamron was not...

I think the 10-20 is a fantastic lens, however, for me it doesn't quite have enough reach for walking around/travel by itself. The 16-50 mm (FF) range is all I feel I need for that. the 10-24 would come close to covering that.

If you feel the 10-20 is short on the long end why would you get something that stops at 16?

You shouldn't buy lenses to cover focal lengths, having gaps is fine, having overlap is fine. You should buy them to cover types of activities or photography.

A 10-24 would in principle completely cover one kind of photography for me (my most common type).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/

I find the Tokina quite fast is focusing. Here's a shot using it up close to bring in the total picture. This is an IR pic 1/200 @ f2.8



--
D80,D70sIR
50 1.8 Series E
28-105 f3.5-4.5
70-200 f2.8
70-300 f4-5.6
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro
Tamron 90 f2.8 macro
Tokina 11-16, f2.8
(2)SB-600's

Thank you all for some very nice user reports and reflections. I have read them several times and all makes some good points.

I know it is strange first to complain about lack of range and then consider a lens with even smaller range, but the f/2.8 is just very attempting, and you could argue that I should just use my 17-55 when I need > 16mm.

Having that said, the more I think about it, the more I believe I need a lens that goes to at least 24mm. One thing I don't like about my Sigma 10-20 is the distortion. It might just be me who don't know how to use a WA lens correct, but my corners often suffers from a lot of distortion. I have read in the Photozone review that the Sigma 12-24 HSM have very little distortion and as a bonus it works as a FX lens when I some day get a FX camera. It is bigger and heavier than the Sigma 10-20 but have less distortion and is future proff. Also I think the range would suite me better.

Have anyone compared the Sigma 12-24 with any of the DX WA lenses?

Thank you again for your help so far.

Rune Nielsen said:

I have the Sigma 10-20 at the moment and use it for landscapes,
hollidays and indoor pictures.

When walking around in cityes, I often find the Sigma to short (I
have the Nikon 17-55 as well but that's often not wide enough for
this). Therefore I was thinking about getting the Tamron 10-24 as it
has a little more range and also a larger aparture. Have anyone tried
this lens yet? Or even seen a review?

On the other hand the Tokina 11-16 and it's f/2.8 aparture fits
perfectly below my 17-55 and 70-200. The Tokina on Canon mount got a
really good review at Photozone and the f/2.8 aparture is very
tempting to me, so I also consider this lens very strongly!

I like the Sigma, but I feel that one of the new offerings by Tokina
and Tamron will be better for me. I'm going to miss the HSM though.

Any thoughts? I'm sure other is/have been in my situation lately.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you are basically happy with the Sigma, but are looking over fences to see what is greener.

I would think that you would move to the Tokinas only if you want sharper edges (if that's a problem in the first place). Tokinas are notorious for CA, so you have to be able to deal with that.

I don't know what "holidays" means, but does this require wide apertures ..... enough to buy a new lens?

I haven't heard anything about the Tamron 10-24, although there is another thread around here somewhere.

Maybe the best thing is to just pick up a 24, 28, 30 or 35 mm prime for those times you need something longer.

msc

I ordered the Tamron 10-24 two weeks ago, and this morning I packed it up and sent it back to B&H. I tried everything from wide open to f/11, from 10mm to 24mm, and I just couldn't find anything sharp enough to suit me. I had wanted it both for landscapes and for weddings, but I wasn't convinced I would get anything good enough to hang on a wall from that lens. The serial # on mine was in the 400s, so it was definitely one of the early ones off the line. I decided I'd rather return it within B&H's return period than chance sending it to Tamron for calibration.

--Rhonda

Found a Sigma 12-24 for a good price on Ebay. Got it a coupple of weeks ago but haven't had time to test it before now.

I took the classic "brick-wall" test on a tripod with self-timer and compared the 12-24 with my 10-20 both at 12mm. The 12-24 is MUCH sharper in the corners. I don't have much time at the moment and I could use the money i got from selling one of the lenses, so the 10-20 was sold yesterday (actually got more for it than I paid for the 12-24).

The 12-24 is bigger, don't use 77mm filters, and the lens-cap is anoying, but the IQ is good, and I look forward to using it on a FX body in the future. I also think the build of this lens is very nice.

Next project duing the new year is to sell my 17-55 and buy the 24-70. Then all my lenses are FX and I can start saving for that D700 body.

Thank you all for your help!