Results 1 to 16 of 16
Thread: Sigma 10-20mm?
09-06-2011, 05:26 PM #1
Sigma 10-20mm?Originally Posted by grrrr
09-06-2011, 05:45 PM #2
i didn't mind the 4-5.6 since i was almost always shooting in bright light, and would stop down as much as posisble to get sharper corners.
go for it! great lens. here's one of my favs from it.... the possibilities are endless:
"Whenever I get a massage, I ALWAYS request a dude." -lionelhutz
"You can't shave off stupid." -lionelhutz
"I was hoping for ice." -lionelhutz
09-06-2011, 05:46 PM #3
I've actually read reviews saying the 4-5.6 is sharper than the newer f/3.5.
09-06-2011, 07:35 PM #4
How does the Tokina 11-16mm compare? It's the best DX ultrawide for Nikon and it comes in a Sony mount.
09-06-2011, 10:04 PM #5
I've looked at these lenses alot. Other than the price, the biggest difference between the 4.5/5.6 vs the 3.5 is the 77mm filter threads vs 82mm for the 3.5.
There is also a Minolta/Sony offering, a 11-18mm that gets good reviews on dyxum.com (Dyxum has a sony minolta lens database and it's a great resource for sony shooters), it is native to the system and has a 77mm filter thread. These lenses are mechanically and optically identical with, obviously the minolta lenses being older. The down side is it's a F/4.5-5.6 lens and only focuses to 25 cm. Cost for the sony is about $600-$700 US (new) and I've seen the Minolta for about 1/2 that (ebay). The lowest I've seen the sony go for used is about $400.
The Tokina gets good reviews, goes to F/2.8 has the 77mm filter ring, and the min focus distance of 30 cm. The price is about the same as the Sony. If you want/need f/2.8 and are willing to spend the money I would take a look.
There is a tamron offering, but the tokina is superior, so I'm skipping it. Edit: I was talking about the Tammy, 11-18. But there is a Tamron 10-24 in the same price range that scores slightly higher overall than the Sigma offerings, but gets much lower scores for sharpness. I'm not sure I'd give that a recommend.
There is also the Sigma 8-16 F4.5-5.6 DC HSM but due to the curvature of the front glass it cannot accept outside filters at all, but goes R E A L L Y w i d e. All three of the sigma lenses are hsm so therotically they'll autofocus on the Nex system with the la-ea1. All of them will af on that system with the la-ea2.
Weight on all of these is pretty close to the same, roughly 500 grams.
If I were in your shoes, I would get the 4.5-5.6 or looked for a used copy of the minolta.
Last edited by Lonnie; 09-07-2011 at 08:45 AM.This is the worst pain EVER!
09-06-2011, 10:19 PM #6
One more thing, there have been some af issues with sigma lenses and sony's SLT cameras, the a33/a55 (and presumably with the a77 and a65). Sigma will rechip the lenses, but you have to send them in and the process can take a month or more.This is the worst pain EVER!
09-06-2011, 10:23 PM #7
I loves my Tokina. One thing to be aware of if you are interested is the AF/MF ring. It is an odd pull/push type to engage AF/MF. It is weird to get used to but I have zero complaints from it. And since it is 77mm LIke Lonnie mentioned it fits all of my filters. Plus it comes with the steezey pinch cap yo!I think you have me confused with someone who is far less awesome.
09-06-2011, 10:25 PM #8
09-07-2011, 10:36 AM #9
Thanks for the input all. I don't have anything near f2.8 right now, so that Tokina sounds pretty nice. Definitely want to be able to plunk a filter on whatever I get. I'm thinking either that or the Sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6, again due to being cheap.Originally Posted by grrrr
09-21-2011, 10:39 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
I love my Sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6. The price is right, it is solidly built and a ton of fun to shoot with.
I am sure the Tokina is great too.
07-25-2012, 09:24 AM #11
Bumping this because I'm looking at these lenses right now and I've been taking more wide action shots in low light lately. It seems like the Tokina 11-16 with the 2.8 is a no brainer for my T2i.... but the 10-22 would be nice for the focal length on both ends especially since I have the 24-105 instead of the 17-55...price is $699 vs 799. My old beat up Tammy 17-50 got jammed up the last time I had it in my camera after it took some stellar pictures and the plastic connector piece in the lense fell out (went right back on) so I'm a little afraid to put it back on now and it would be sweet to have something wider.
07-25-2012, 11:48 AM #12
While researching just noted that the Tokina 11-16 Mark II is due out this month for the same retail price but likely higher street price than the original. Looks like some worthwhile improvements.
07-25-2012, 11:58 AM #13Wait, should I have just posted that? Is skidog's pussy going to bleed all over the place after reading what I just typed? Maybe I should rethink it? Nah, fuck it, it's the intartubes.
07-25-2012, 12:04 PM #14
Last edited by uglymoney; 07-25-2012 at 06:39 PM.
07-28-2012, 08:37 PM #15
Found this review. It seems to give the nod to the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma f3.5. Recommend the Sigma just because of the price. B and H has imported 10-22's for $719 brand new which really isn't that much more than the Sigma or Tokina. Seems like a lot of very good lenses to choose from or wait for the newer Tokina. Choices, choices...
07-28-2012, 08:52 PM #16
I ended up going with the canon over the sigma. I tried both on the same body, and the sigma seemed darker/dimmer in general, and had noticeably more vingetting.
Last edited by iscariot; 07-29-2012 at 10:10 AM.