This lens seems to have some good reviews and is a couple hundred dollars less than the Canon 10-22, but is it worth the extra $$ to get the Canon lens? Thanks.
Posted by David Taylor on May 30, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I've been using the Tokina for a few years now. It's not as quiet or fast as I hoped (nothing like a USM), but it is built well and has taken some abuse. It's also pretty sharp. I miss the 17-40L on a full frame though... have to wait for the 5D II for that.
I bought one for underwater use (in a housing of course) a couple of months ago but I have only given it limited use. I have been pleased with the shots I have taken so far. This is on a Nikon, though.
A year ago I was in the market for a superwide lens for my D200, and narrowed the search down to three - the Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, and the Sigma 10-20. Optically the Nkon was ok, but not better than the others, being more or less equal to the Tokina and more expensive. The Tokina seemed to be made better, feeling more solid in the hand and smoother. But the dark horse caught me by surprise - the Sigma offered noticeably better performance, especially at the center and even wide open, than the other two. I would describe the center sharpness of my copy as spectacular, and the edge and corner sharpness as very good to excellent - especially at F5.6. And it is wider - more than one would think - than the 12mm wide end the others offer. Another benefit was the HSM, but since depth of field is so great, if you set your lens to F8 and use a manual hyperfocal setting everything in your scene will be in focus. See for yourself
A couple of drawbacks - flare is fairly high if you include the light source in the frame, otherwise its not too bad, and CA is noticeable under the conditions that usually result in CA, but it can be dealt with in Photoshop.
If you get this lens, there is a fair chance that you will end up with a copy that is less than perfect - given Sigma's record of QC. Not to worry. Sigma in Lake Ronkonkoma NY took my lens, which had some centering issues, and realigned it at no charge under warranty within a 10 day turnaround. Also, if you are placing a front UV filter, do not waste your money on anything but the best glass. B&W, or the Hoya Pro SMC ultra thin filters work well.
I've had a 12-24 Tokina for my Canon for about 3 years now and I find it a solid workhorse of a lens. It's not as fast as I'd like and there is a bit of flaring at the wide open but I've been really happy with it. I used the savings on the lens to buy my 300L. f2.8.
I can't find the links right now, but there are some good comparisons between this lens, the Sigma 10-20 and offerings from Nikon and Canon. I can't remember why I chose the Sigma over the Tokina to give my wife, mostly out of self defense so she would quit "borrowing" my Nikon 12-24 for long periods of time.
But I have to admit after using the Sigma side by side with my Nikon, the Sigma is actually quite a bit better, even though it cost less than half. Images are crisper, both more contrasty and saturated. And you will note a considerable difference in 10mm vs 12mm at the wide end. That extra little bit is very useful, because when you're reaching for a wide lens, you often really need the wide end.
Best summary of the quality of the Sigma is to say that I often borrow my wifes' even though I've got a 12-24 Nikon in my bag. I can't say how it compares to the Canon, but if you're looking at alternatives, I wouldn't bypass the Sigma without a close look.
Hank, that's exactly what I thought about the two lenses. The review you spoke of is in a nikon forum but it is poor etiquette to link to other forums, which is why I didn't post it myself. There are many, many reviews of these lenses all over the internet, and by and large, though none are perfect, the Sigma continues to emerge as the standard against which others are compared.
You can find comparisons between many wide angle lenses (incl. the Tokina) at LightRules.
The comparison between the Sigma 10-20 lens and the Canon 10-22 lens there convinced me to buy the Sigma wide angle, and I
ve not ever regretted it. Not only do you save $$$ for the same quality as the Canon lens, but the Sigma includes a lens hood (!) and a rugged case. Never had a quality issue as noted earlier, but this can happen with just about any lens.
And yes, the difference between 10 mm and 12 mm on the wide end is fairly substantial, as you can see from this chart.
I've been using the Tokina for a while now. I can't say anything regarding the comments that it's too slow focusing, or should have a faster aperture because I use it for landscapes, and those don't run away. I think it's a very nice lens, with good sharpness and color, very solidly built.
The problem I've been running into is flare. It flares quite easily whenever there's a strong light source in the frame. I'll try the Nikon to see if that one's any better.
I'm a bit surprised, honestly, about the remarks that the Sigma is the best of the bunch (other than the obvious fact that it's the widest). I've never used one, but from reading a lot of discussions on wideangle lenses, I've been (mis?)lead to think that the Tokina is price/performance winner while the Nikon is in absolute terms still the best of the bunch (less CA, less flare, in particular).
I don't notice flare in either the Nikon or the Sigma Basil, and focus speed with both appears comparable to any other lenses we're using. While a fair bit of my subjects with either lens are static, I do use them when appropriate for action. I usually help my wife with her larger weddings, shooting the candids on the sidelines while she shoots the formals, then joining with her to shoot the receptions. In the "bride tosses the boquet" and other quick shots, both focus quickly and reliably.
But both my wife and I can identify which lens shot which photos based on color and contrast. The Sigma is significantly better, and the comparison will have you reaching for the Photoshop controls to adjust the shots from the Nikon. It's a little subjective and based on fast scans of images during sorting rather than tests, but the Sigma also seems sharper, though that may be a result of the better contrast and color.
The Nikon is certainly a fine lens, but can't justify a price twice as high as the Sigma from the standpoint of either image quality or durability. We are very hard on our gear, and both are holding up well.
This is the link to the comparison between the sigma, nikon, tokina and tamron ultrawide zooms - http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html
There is a great site that has a collection of reviews of many popular lenses - http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslensesreview3rdpartylensessortedbybrandandmodel01.htm
And I also rely on http://www.photozone.de/reviews for some good information.
Discussion
11 replieshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/2451865188/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/2049951386/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/1716932143/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/1281864040/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/1142079976/in/photostream/
A couple of drawbacks - flare is fairly high if you include the light source in the frame, otherwise its not too bad, and CA is noticeable under the conditions that usually result in CA, but it can be dealt with in Photoshop.
If you get this lens, there is a fair chance that you will end up with a copy that is less than perfect - given Sigma's record of QC. Not to worry. Sigma in Lake Ronkonkoma NY took my lens, which had some centering issues, and realigned it at no charge under warranty within a 10 day turnaround. Also, if you are placing a front UV filter, do not waste your money on anything but the best glass. B&W, or the Hoya Pro SMC ultra thin filters work well.
But I have to admit after using the Sigma side by side with my Nikon, the Sigma is actually quite a bit better, even though it cost less than half. Images are crisper, both more contrasty and saturated. And you will note a considerable difference in 10mm vs 12mm at the wide end. That extra little bit is very useful, because when you're reaching for a wide lens, you often really need the wide end.
Best summary of the quality of the Sigma is to say that I often borrow my wifes' even though I've got a 12-24 Nikon in my bag. I can't say how it compares to the Canon, but if you're looking at alternatives, I wouldn't bypass the Sigma without a close look.
The comparison between the Sigma 10-20 lens and the Canon 10-22 lens there convinced me to buy the Sigma wide angle, and I
ve not ever regretted it. Not only do you save $$$ for the same quality as the Canon lens, but the Sigma includes a lens hood (!) and a rugged case. Never had a quality issue as noted earlier, but this can happen with just about any lens.
And yes, the difference between 10 mm and 12 mm on the wide end is fairly substantial, as you can see from this chart.
The problem I've been running into is flare. It flares quite easily whenever there's a strong light source in the frame. I'll try the Nikon to see if that one's any better.
I'm a bit surprised, honestly, about the remarks that the Sigma is the best of the bunch (other than the obvious fact that it's the widest). I've never used one, but from reading a lot of discussions on wideangle lenses, I've been (mis?)lead to think that the Tokina is price/performance winner while the Nikon is in absolute terms still the best of the bunch (less CA, less flare, in particular).
Basil
But both my wife and I can identify which lens shot which photos based on color and contrast. The Sigma is significantly better, and the comparison will have you reaching for the Photoshop controls to adjust the shots from the Nikon. It's a little subjective and based on fast scans of images during sorting rather than tests, but the Sigma also seems sharper, though that may be a result of the better contrast and color.
The Nikon is certainly a fine lens, but can't justify a price twice as high as the Sigma from the standpoint of either image quality or durability. We are very hard on our gear, and both are holding up well.
There is a great site that has a collection of reviews of many popular lenses - http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslensesreview3rdpartylensessortedbybrandandmodel01.htm
And I also rely on http://www.photozone.de/reviews for some good information.