+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25
dqw
  1. #1
    Pro BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default  UWA for crop  
      
      

    I am trying to decide between the tokina 12-24 f4 and the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. I like the idea of a constant aperture, but for ultra wide the extra 2mm probably makes a difference in some situations. thoughts?


    • Advertising

      advertising
      newschoolofphotography.com
      has no influence on the ads
      that Google displays.



        
       

  2. #2
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default          

    10 * 1.6 = 16mm
    12 * 1.6 = 19.2mm

    Need I say more?
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  3. #3
    cold-blooded internet insult machine Markitos's Avatar
    Member#
    74
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    10 * 1.6 = 16mm
    12 * 1.6 = 19.2mm

    Need I say more?
    2mm is a really big difference on the wide end... not having a constant aperture never slowed me down. Just shoot on the wide end all the time!!

    I also like that the Sigma has manual focus override, whereas with the Tokina, you have to move a ring on the barrel of the lens to toggle between the two.
    “Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept.” -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

  4. #4
    Pro BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Well that is enough convincing for me. Sigma4less here I come. Thanks guys.

  5. #5
    the anti-surl thechickencow's Avatar
    Member#
    27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Northern WI

    Default          

    Yeah, absolutely go with the sigma. I really like mine.

    I used to love it until I got my 17-55.

  6. #6
    Pro user errors's Avatar
    Member#
    197
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central NJ

    Default          

    <3 Sigma 10-20
    Greg || Gear | Flickr

  7. #7
    antiCTLNLHIASDR ride5000's Avatar
    Member#
    151
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Providence, Rhode Island, United States

    Default          

    that sigma is probably the next thing i pick up too... i just wish i had the $$$!

  8. #8
    Worn out shutter PhatheadWRX's Avatar
    Member#
    358
    Join Date
    Apr 2008

    Default          

    Ok guys for my future reference, would you go:

    Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22?
    - French - Site - Flickr - Gear -

  9. #9
    Pro user errors's Avatar
    Member#
    197
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central NJ

    Default          

    The Canon is faster, has an extra 2mm, and is supposedly sharper, but it's also much more expensive.

    I went Sigma.
    Greg || Gear | Flickr

  10. #10
    diabetic coma in a chocolate shell LucKie355's Avatar
    Member#
    51
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    More flags, More fun!

    Default          

    We just got the Sigma 10-20 last month, it's been great. Luca loves it and uses it almost exclusively now.

    -K
    -Kiera
    I am woman, hear me nag.

  11. #11
    antiCTLNLHIASDR ride5000's Avatar
    Member#
    151
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Providence, Rhode Island, United States

    Default          

    afaik the only reason not to go canon is the money.

  12. #12
    Worn out shutter PhatheadWRX's Avatar
    Member#
    358
    Join Date
    Apr 2008

    Default          

    Anyone try both?

    Edit - after looking through the Lens Forum (Marks Sigma Review and others), I think my curosity is satisfied The sigma does look nice.
    Last edited by PhatheadWRX; 06-13-2008 at 08:04 AM.
    - French - Site - Flickr - Gear -

  13. #13
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default          

    here's a good review between the 10-22 and the 10-20:
    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest
    Basically he says neither is perfect, both have minor issues, but both are fantastic lenses. If you need the speed of the canon (AF and aperture) then maybe it's worth the extra $.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  14. #14
    the anti-surl thechickencow's Avatar
    Member#
    27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Northern WI

    Default          

    I couldn't justify the extra money for the canon (i think that seems common)

  15. #15
    Pro user errors's Avatar
    Member#
    197
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central NJ

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by thechickencow View Post
    I couldn't justify the extra money for the canon (i think that seems common)
    Same here. Especially since I was able to pick up my Sigma used for only $400 shipped
    Greg || Gear | Flickr

  16. #16
    Pro BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    I agree. Looking at the POTN archives and the pixel peeper archives I do not see much of a difference at all. The extra 2mm on the long end seems counter intuitive to ultra wide angle. I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for that. This lens will rarely leave 10mm for me. And by the way, my new Sigma shipped today. Should have it by Wed.

  17. #17
    Pro user errors's Avatar
    Member#
    197
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central NJ

    Default          

    Nice!
    Greg || Gear | Flickr

  18. #18
    Pro BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    I can't wait. I will be at the American Ghost Conference as a guest next weekend. Should be fun to play with this in a conference environment.

  19. #19
    Zero Hero jjswee's Avatar
    Member#
    98
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    California

    Default          

    Someone should really make a 10mm prime lens.

  20. #20
    ken rockwell Geekybiker's Avatar
    Member#
    113
    Join Date
    Dec 2007

    Default          

    I just wish the UWA lenses weren't $500ish +
    ɐıʇılıɯ xɐʇuəd
    Flickr

  21. #21
    Pro BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by jjswee View Post
    Someone should really make a 10mm prime lens.
    There are a couple, but they are fisheyes.

  22. #22
    Zero Hero jjswee's Avatar
    Member#
    98
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    California

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyT View Post
    There are a couple, but they are fisheyes.



    Someone should really make a non-fisheye 10mm prime lens.

  23. #23
    Pro BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    It would be expensive. The Canon 14mm is $1750, the reason I went with a zoom for UWA.

  24. #24
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default          

    yeah, I'd love some wider UWA primes, but they seem cost prohibitive. Plus each single MM wider is such a difference, zooms make a lot more sense with UWAs, otherwise you'd need 4~5 primes to cover the range.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  25. #25
    Pro user errors's Avatar
    Member#
    197
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central NJ

    Default          

    Yeah, I don't think a UWA prime is all that practical
    Greg || Gear | Flickr

+ Reply to Thread Go Back to forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts