Wide angle lens

[judybee]

I am thinking about buying a wide angle lens for my Nikon D40.
I am trying to decide between the Tamron 10-24mm and the Sigma 10-20mm.
I have read previous threads and most people seem to have the Sigma 10-20 and are pretty happy with it.
Does anybody have the Tamron 10-24mm? Are you happy with it?

[arthurking83]

Go with what's known to work well... Sigma 10-20 f/4-f/5.6 version(cheaper) as opposed to the f/3 version(much more xpensive).

by all accounts and reviews(so far) they all seem to have about the same resolution abilities at the centre of the frame, but the Sigma seems to have better ability at the edges of the image at wide-middle focal lengths.

The Tokina 11-16 is THE best for APS-C cameras with the best resolution all round and being f/2.8 but it's manual focus only on a D40 and a lot more expensive than the Siggy(I think ~$900 cf ~$600-700 for the Sigma).

IF!!! you plan on updating the camera to a D80/90 type model that can autofocus with the Tokina, then you mayend up regretting getting the Sigma at some future point.
if you can live with manual focusing till that day.. get the Tokina. if you never plan on upgrading the camera then get the Sigma :th3:

hope that helps.

EDIT: Oh! and get a polariser filter for it too! :th3: many folks will say that you shouldn't really use a polariser with such a wide angle lens.. but I beg to differ.(99.9% of my images taken with the Sigma lens have the polariser on)

[bigdazzler]

Never used the Tamron, but have owned a Sigma and IMO its one of the best value for money lenses out there. I suppose you need to wonder why were always hearing about the 10-20 and rarely about the 10-24 ?? You wont be disappointed with the Sigma, its a ripper of a lens for the $$$

[kwokask]

I haven't actually had any experience with the Tamron, but in general I find the build quality of Sigma > Tamron.
I have the Sigma in Canon mount and it is built like a tank.

[richardb]

Hi Judy, Tokina 11-16 mm f2.8 is the best to recommend from 2nd supplier market.
I borrowed it to try 1st from friends, but finally I bought it as well.
Here one my exercises with that Tokina on my Nikon cam. If u might upgrade ur cam, this lens will be a keeper. Regards, Richard

http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/domenicosavio/AC%20Cathedral%20and%20neighbour%20buildings/MYFAVSHOTINAACHEN.jpg

[bigdazzler]

but in general I find the build quality of Sigma > Tamron.


I agree .. the Sigmas are more solid, but I have had a few Tamrons, and although they are a little more "plasticcy", they wont fall apart on you either. So dont go with the Sigma purely for the superior build quality, the Tamrons arent that bad.

[JM Tran]

+1 for the Sigma 10-20 here, at around $600 and under new, its an excellent lens for its price

Sigma will be releasing the 8-16mm soon, to give it the similar field of view to its full frame Sigma 12-24 - the widest rectilinear zoom lens u can go before a fish eye. No doubt it will be a lot more expensive though.

[judybee]

Thank you for commenting. It gives me something to think about, especially about whether or not to upgrade my camera at some stage. I think I will upgrade, but don't think it will be in the near future.
Thanks again.

[Slide]

I wouldn't get too worried about not having AF on a UWA(not one as short as Tokina) your focus distance is around 15cm-2m unlike 2-15+m in telephotos. If you don't like changing lens alot then the Tokina probably isn't for you due to it's focal range (11-16mm). As others have said the Siggy is alot of bang for buck, but if image quality is king then the Tokina is the best lens around.

Kenrockwell has a good comparison of most of the available UWA's.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

[JM Tran]

I wouldn't get too worried about not having AF on a UWA(not one as short as Tokina) your focus distance is around 15cm-2m unlike 2-15+m in telephotos. If you don't like changing lens alot then the Tokina probably isn't for you due to it's focal range (11-16mm). As others have said the Siggy is alot of bang for buck, but if image quality is king then the Tokina is the best lens around.

Kenrockwell has a good comparison of most of the available UWA's.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm


just read that review by Rockwell, and also on the Sigma 12-24 that I own. Cheap build quality on the Sigma EX models? what is he smoking now? Not to mention that stating the latter to be not as sharp as the Nikon 12-24, which the Sigma outperforms in corner to corner sharpness and far betters the Canon 17-40 L via online tests shown on the net.

But he did write it in 2004, when DSLRs were at low MP sensors and couldnt produce something to have enough resolving power for the lenses yet. Idiot.

[Xevious]

Never had a Tamron, but I had the Sigma 10-20 briefly before I went FF. Quite a solid performer the Sigma. Great value for money as others have said and also fairly good build quality too.

[judybee]

Thanks for that Xevious. That seems to be the general concensus, so I think I will go for the Sigma.

[adverts]

Im a massive Sigma 10-20 fan, it often lives on the end of my camera, minimal distortion, always sharp and depending what test report you read some say performs better than Canon equivalent 10-22 which is often a good benchmark (I realise you have a Nikon).

Definitely good value for the cost

[judybee]

Im a massive Sigma 10-20 fan, it often lives on the end of my camera, minimal distortion, always sharp and depending what test report you read some say performs better than Canon equivalent 10-22 which is often a good benchmark (I realise you have a Nikon).

Definitely good value for the cost

Thanks for that. All these comments have me pretty much convinced for the Sigma. I now just need to find the funds ...:eek: