Ultra Wide APS-C (d7100)

[Brendo09]

Now I know there's been a few threads on this, but they are a few years old and there could be something new to discuss between then and now.

I'm keen on an Ultrawide for my d7100.

The cheapest ($250-$300 ish) is the Sigma EX 10-20mm f/4.0 - 5.6 DC EX HSM. It's also got the widest view of those I'm considering (10mm) but get's some so-so reviews for corner sharpness and distorsion.

The darling seems to be the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f2.8 Pro DX II. Constant aperture, fast enough for low light, and great optics. Will cost around $550-$600.

There's the older sister, the Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f4.0 Pro DX. Again, constant aperture, not super fast but when most of the shooting is at f8-12... and will cost around $350 - $400.

My current walk around is a Tamron 17-55, and I don't think I'll get below 17mm very often.

Currently I'm leaning towards saving a little more for the 11-16mm, though I passed today on a good value deal for the Sigma 10-20 (no paypal available from the seller!).


Not having the opportunity to hold any of these before I buy them, have any other users bought any of the above and regretted it? I'm sure that the more I analyse it the worse it gets. :)

[sanger]

Tokina 11-20 ?....just to add more confusion.

[Brendo09]

Didn't even know it existed :)

Looks like it's getting rave reviews across the board. It is around $650+ for a new one...

[ameerat42]

...

...

...the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f2.8 Pro DX II. Constant aperture...

...the Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f4.0 Pro DX. Again, constant aperture...
...

Of course we all know you mean "constant f-stop", and again, "constant f-stop":D and :D



...have any other users bought any of the above and regretted it? I'm sure that the more I analyse it the worse it gets.



Yes, the Σ10-20 f/4.5, on a loan for some hours and a few 12 shots, but NOT the others.
I did not regret it, and I do not regret the Σ 8-16, which I bought later.

But using them properly... - That's the thing:nod:

[Brendo09]

Yes, it would appear that I meant constant f-stop and not constant aperture. Subtle but important difference. Thank you.:-)

[Glenda]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - great lens. I think Am is getting a bit pedantic - google 'what is a constant f stop' and threads about constant aperture lenses appear.

[ameerat42]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - great lens. I think Am is getting a bit pedantic - google 'what is a constant f stop' and threads about constant aperture lenses appear.

Lamentable, isn't it? - Looks like Google is NOT populated by 50 million Frenchmen.
We're generating a world of indiscriminant photographers.

Lucky we have forums like AP to be "pedantic" in:D

[ricktas]

and now to really add something else to the mix. Are you..into the future.. always going to have crop-sensor camera bodies?

In five years time would you consider a full frame body?

The reason I ask, is why not future proof and get a lens that is an FX lens so that you can use it with a full-frame body in the future? After all if you decide in a few years to get a full frame camera, and all you have is DX lenses, then the outlay for new lenses is going to be significant.

[Hawthy]

For what it is worth, I use the Sigma 10-20 mm on a D5100 and it is fine for my purposes. I think I jagged a used one for $220 online.

[Brendo09]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - great lens. I think Am is getting a bit pedantic - google 'what is a constant f stop' and threads about constant aperture lenses appear.

Thanks Lplates. I'm leaning this way, both for the price, the quality and that it snugs against my 17-55. And I don't own a Tokina lens, so that's something else to tick off.


and now to really add something else to the mix. Are you..into the future.. always going to have crop-sensor camera bodies?

In five years time would you consider a full frame body?

The reason I ask, is why not future proof and get a lens that is an FX lens so that you can use it with a full-frame body in the future? After all if you decide in a few years to get a full frame camera, and all you have is DX lenses, then the outlay for new lenses is going to be significant.

Ricktas, this is something I've thought about quite a bit actually. The thing that is stoping me making the jump is probably price. I snagged my d7100 for around $650. To get into a full frame I'd be keen on would cost me around $1300, and to be honest, that's just too much for me to spend on something that I don't get to do nearly as much as I'd like. Give me ten years, and two or three kids hopefully left home by then, maybe I'll think differently.

I also don't think I'll ever outgrow the capabilities of my d7100. I don't do this to make a living, so I don't need to keep in front of the commercial Jones's.


For what it is worth, I use the Sigma 10-20 mm on a D5100 and it is fine for my purposes. I think I jagged a used one for $220 online.

This is the budget option. From all accounts it's a great lens, and for the price nothing tops it.

What do we do? Just keep looking, just keep looking, look look look... :)

[Hawthy]

I have had to remember why I chose the Sigma 10-20mm over better credentialled lenses. I think it came down to this:

1. It is more affordable than the other lenses. Tick.
2. Sure, the largest aperture is only f4.0 versus f2.8 but given that I will usually use it for landscape photos will I ever use the maximum aperture? Probably not. Do I need a shallow DOF with this lens? I am not sure that lenses this wide have shallow DOF but again, probably not.
3. Am I a good enough photographer to justify spending $600 on a lens when my camera cost me less than that? Nup.
4. What will I use this lens for? Mainly for travel and landscape shots that no one but me will care about.
5. If I don't like it, can I put it back on Ebay for about what I paid for it and drop minimal cash? Yep.

Just my thoughts.

[ameerat42]

I have had to remember why I chose the Sigma 10-20mm over better credentialled lenses. I think it came down to this:
...
Just my thoughts.

Well said, Hawthy. And don't forget the overratedness and hearsay:D

[arthurking83]

I'm with Hawthy.

I have the Sigma, have used it to within the last inch of it's life.
I can't part with it, simply because it's done so much for me!

As they say, corner sharpness isn't on par with what a macro lens can do .. that's for sure.

BUT!!!

this knowledge should be taken into context.
On a macro lens, corner sharpness can be important to very important.
The type of shots you're making with a macro lens implies a certain relevance to that part of the lenses ability.

At the other end of the spectrum, is the UWA lens, and what types of images you're going to be taking on the whole.
You're almost certain to be taking shots of wide vistas, or maybe architecture or even really wide shots of people in large groups where space is at a premium.

Corner sharpness in all of those situations is pretty much irrelevant!
(reason):
think about the type of content that will fill the corners of the frame in those above situations:
In a the wide vista scene, more than likely grass/water/sky/clouds. Ask yourself why would you really expect a super sharp rendering of water/sky/clouds/grass ... etc?

In some situations in architecture, you may want only the building in the frame(ie. as in a closeup detail architecture image).
But on the whole, wide angle architecture photography is about getting the entire building in the image, with a bit of environmental periphery detail too.
As above re the!! you don't really need that periphery detail to be perfectly sharp. Expectations of this kind of performance from the lens is a exercise in futility!

Unless you print massive 10+ meter murals for viewing up close, that kind of detail isn't really an important aspect of the image.
What people like to see is a nice image. Good colour, nicely framed interesting subject matter, etc .. etc.

I reckon I have about 190K images stored on my drives. I saw once that nearly 50% of those 'keepers' were shot at 10mm(ie. implies the use of the Siggy).
Over the years I've posted more images from that lens on here than any other single lens, and never have I received a comment that the corners of the image were not sharp.

And of the 10+ years that I've used this lens now, I do remember once where I did think that a bit more sharpness from the corners would have been nice.
That one time was where I shot a 360° pano series, and the rendering of the detail was harder to make out when trying to line up one image relative to the other.
if you've used PTGui, you know that that means, but basically you have the two side by side images on the screen at the same time. image on the left lines up with the next image on the right.
You look for detail(eg. rocks, grass, whatever) on one image, and pinpoint that some details on the image next to it. the software then determines the best way to stitch the images together .. ie. for distortion, and warpage and stuff.

This one pano stitch was harder because some detail was hard to determine.
Note tho that the detail itself wasn't important for the image. No would dare comment that the detail in the rocks on the ground were mushy!
(ie. it was an irrelevant point in the image!)

I used to think that image sharpness was one of the most important considerations in some way ... but I quickly moved on from that debilitating disease.
it can be in the right context or situation .. eg. as before with the macro situation.
But for a UWA lens .. used for that wide vista purpose!! :confused013

This is one of my decisions in choosing the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6.
It's cheap, its small light, etc. does a more than acceptable job of it.
Filters for it come cheap, a hack job on my part tho! (but it all works).

There could be a situation where the corner sharpness could be an important aspect of the situation, but to be honest I can't think of where or why!

I've used the older Tokina 11-16/2.8, and it's a great lens. The older model had screw type focusing, and it's focusing was not as nice as the Sigma lens(HSM).
it was definitely a bit sharper, but for the price difference .. not worth really taking into consideration.
Sigma has less distortion than the Tokina tho.

The only real downside of the Sigma lens, considering all the facts and figures in it's ability and cost ratio, is the slow aperture!
Most folks see the aperture value and think of the obvious points about it.
(apologies to Hawthy and I'm not having a go!!)
But Hawthy's comment re the maximum aperture is indicative of this.

Hawthy commented that the max aperture of f/2.8 on the Tokina is something they'd rearely/never really use, but the fact is that it's something that will always be used!
With lens mounted to camera, lens aperture is ALWAYS set to maximum. It's stops down only for the exposure.
In dim/low/no light situations, the light coming through the lens into the viewfinder is determined by the lens max aperture!
So that f/2.8 lens is going to give you a brighter image(up to a point tho) compared to the slower f/4-5.6 lens!!
ie. you don't even realise that you are making use of that faster aperture in the above situation.
But also note that this is relevant only in very low light ... ie. post sunset or in heavy shade at low light .. etc.
During a sunset you most likely would never notice it at all!
(pe. the viewfinder screen also affects this performance too, and complicates the issue a little).

So: main reason for the faster f/2.8 aperture is the ability to see(and focus) in low light .. plus the added bonus of one more stop of light capturing ability .. etc.

If it were my money:
at the low price point(whatever it was .. eg. $200-ish) .. for sure get the Siggy.
be mindful tho that they are a very precise instrument is that small knocks will put lens element s out of whack. In fact all lenses do this to a degree, and almost certainly a second hand lens may have some lens decentering or tilt.
what this does is make the lens less sharp on one side of the image than the other.
Mine is currently like this after years of usage.( I have plans to get it serviced and straightened up one day .. not to sell it!)

if you budget extended into the $700-ish range, then I'd suggest the Sigma 12-24II. it's full frame capable.
Main reason is, even after all the above commentary re the futility of wanting sharply rendered corners, because the Sigma is full frame, on an APS-C lens, you'll only use the sharper central portion of the lenses ability.
And in that, it's sharp!.
This lens is also not sharp in the corners!
But in the 2/3rds range of the image circle, it's sharp! So on an APS-C sensor, the corners will render sharp.

option 3:
if you do shoot in low light a fair bit .. and you use filters and whatnot: Get the Tokina simply for the f/2.8 aperture.