sigma 10-20mm vs tonika 11-16mm

[matilda]

i'm thinking of getting one of these lens. Which one I haven't fully decided on. (At the moment I'm slightly leaning towards the sigma lens).

I'm after a more wider angle lens (my widest is my 35mm, which I love). I'll be using mostly for outdoor shoots (family location shoots).

So I thought I would come on here and get your opinion.

If you have images to show using these lens please feel free to post.

nb: i'm aware that their can be lens distortion with the sigma.

[PH005]

I have the Siggy, like a lot of other members do. It is a great lens, well built with great image qaulity. I think after all the research that I did whilst deciding which UWA to go for, I found that the Tokina was indeed rated better. My deciding factor was the extra 4mm. I dont know if you can really detect any difference in the two. Which ever one you go for will give you lots of pleasure. Look up most of " Williams " seascapes. Most are shot with His Sigma 10-20.

[William]

If your only going to use it for Family Group location shots , Dont use the Sigma 10-20 , Everybody on the outside edges will be distorted and have big Bums, I have one but would never use it in that situation , Maybe all right at from 16 to 20 mm , But I'm sure there are other more suitable Lenses for your application , Just my opinion :)

[arthurking83]

All UWA lenses will produce the 'stretch' distortions William referred too(if the subject is at the edge of the frame). That's just how the optical physics of lenses work.

I've used both of those lenses, and they each have their respective pros and cons. Sigma is generally cheaper, Tokina is faster. That just about sums up the differences between the two.

Usually, you don't need a faster aperture UWA lens, but this doesn't mean that the use of f/2.8 on an 11mm lens is an unacceptable proposition(and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!!)
Many people refer to the aperture as a means for varying the DOF of a scene, but probably forget that it also allows in varying amounts of light, so the use of an 11mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 would be ideal for event photography in low light!

1 extra stop of aperture can be the difference between getting a shot or not.. so bonus points to the Tokina there.

But! if you plan on using an UWA for a lot of static scenery, such as landscapes, still life, even portrait photography where the environmental background is important for portrait, you will most likely be shooting for a bit more DOF(say f/5.6) where the background won't be so blurry(but doesn't have to be razor sharp).
Big problem with all wide angle lenses (that I've ever studied), is that bokeh is not something you want to create in the scene... it's almost always ugly.. nervous, so you shoudl be aware of that aspect. So don't expect 85mm f/1.4 smooth bokeh from a wide angle lens.

Bonus of the Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 is that it's not only cheaper, but that the focusing system of the lens is HSM(AFS type) that allows full time override and quite smooth fuss free auto focusing. This can be a bonus in some situations too.. you may not want the indecisive buzzing of a screw driven focusing system annoying you or your subjects. Auto focusing can be more prone to indecision when you use a UWA lens, because the AF points are covering a larger area of focusable subject matter. That is, if you compare the AF zone's coverage area between a 35mm lens and a 10mm lens, the 35mm lens may cover only the eye of a persons face, where in contrast the same af area on a 10mm lens may now be covering the eye, nose and ears, as well as any detectable matter in the background.

So both lenses are equally as good as each other. Technically the Tokina is the better lens, but really... only if you shoot it at f/2.8 - f/4.0 a lot of the time. If you shoot at f/5.6 more often then the Sigma is the better lens(I think) in that the performance is equal(at the wide end, that I can remember) but the focusing of the lens(ie. the handling) is nicer.

Other aspects I think I remember was that the Tokina was more prone to vignetting than the Sigma, and while it wasn't a major issue, the 1mm of extra width of the Sigma was noticable, but only indoors!

Cons: Sigma ... not really any to bother the average photographer. Tokina, will produce more CA(chromatic aberration) purple fringing. I woudln't call it a massive issue, but the Tokina does it where the Sigma doens't in the same conditions.
CA is generally easy to process out on the computer.

NOTE!! if you have no plans for using filters on this type of lens, I think that the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 will be the best of the UWA lenses currently on the market(for Dx). Look into that lens too.

[matilda]

this has been very helpful.

I will be using the lens more for myself than family situations.

And I will most likely be shooting around f5.6. I very rarely use filters as it is (and when i do it's for landscapes and such).

thanks again

[PH005]

One other small detail to consider is, if you were to use a filter system then even with the "P" series Cokin you can only shoot down to 11mm on the Sigma. ( 10mm will catch the outside edges of the frame ) Not to bigga of an issue.

[Jaded62]

I use the Sigma for landscapes. Fantastic lens.

[kiwi]

for family portrait shots the LAST lens Id use would be a UWA, ok, maybe a fisheye would be THE last. Anything wider than 20mm on a crop camera is going to cause distortion in my opinion the closer you get to the subject

[matilda]

i just got child support back pay! Yay.

so I've decided to get myself a pressie, and it's going to be one of these 2 lens.

I'm going oversea's in dec/jan (to argentina), and I thought an uwa would be awesome. I keep changing my mind though, 1st it's the sigma, then it's the tonika... if you have pics taken with either of these lens, can you give me the link so i can see thanks.

[Speedway]

These (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?87128-Little-House-On-The-Hill-Revisited.) and the first 4 here (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?50642-Found-another-hidden-lake.) were all taken with the 10-20 sigma. EXIF intact.
Keith.

[Tommo224]

A UWA lens is definitely on the cards for me next. Thanks for this thread :)

[achee]

If your only going to use it for Family Group location shots , Dont use the Sigma 10-20 , Everybody on the outside edges will be distorted and have big Bums, I have one but would never use it in that situation , Maybe all right at from 16 to 20 mm , But I'm sure there are other more suitable Lenses for your application , Just my opinion :)

x2. Been there, done that, and the resultes aren't cool (unless you're intentionally trying to do something quirky). If you're going to shoot groups using the wide end of a wide lens, make sure no body parts are anywhere near the corners of the frame.

[N*A*M]

i had the 11-16. i loved the 2.8 speed and hated the CA. i paid too much for it.