# Sigma 10-20 VS. Tokina 12-24?



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

I am beginning to save up for a wider lens. I've heard good and bad things about both. All of the reviews I've read and all the forums I've been to have said different things about both.

Some have told me that the Sigma is crap in terms of build quality and distortion, and to get the Tokina. Some have told me the Tokina is crap compared to the Sigma. I am really confused on which lens is better. The extra 2mm is nice on the Sigma, but I'm not really sure it matters. How much wider is 2mm? The Tokina looks more solidly built and is faster, but then again aperture isn't my main priority.

My main concern is IQ (distortion, vignetting, sharpness, color, etc.). So overlooking the obvious advantages and disadvantages of both, which has better IQ?


----------



## table1349 (Jan 11, 2009)

I wouldn't choose either.  This would be my choice instead. 
Tokina | 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus | ATX116PRODXN

Sets a new standard in the Ultra wide catagory.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

My max budget is $400, which is what I can get the 12-24 or the 10-20 for used in good condition. The 11-16 looks like a newer lens, so it'll be awhile before it hits the used market. I was looking at it, but is it worth waiting the extra time and spending the extra money? I thought it was just the F2.8 that made it better than the others.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 11, 2009)

Well, I'm sure I've heard good things about the Sigma 10-20, and I'm pretty sure that the Tokina 12-24 is good as well.

I own the Tokina 11-16 2.8, and it is a great lens, albeit more expensive than the others. I wanted the 2.8 because slower lenses are pretty much useless in some dark places I shoot. Also the range is very useful, I shoot the 11-16 on one body and either a 17-50, or a 30mm 1.4 on another body, in tight areas this combo is quite nice. 

But between the two you have listed I would opt for the 10-20, Having those extra 2mm on the wide end will be nice, and seeing as you have a 18-50 already, there is not that much need for the longer end of the 12-24. In short Its an Ultra wide lens, you will usually us it at its widest point.

I think you are correct, that image quality wise all three perform very well, the 11-16 has its main advantage of being at least a stop faster than the other two.

Customer reviews are all extremely high on B&H, so I would search for some reviews to compare the two(or three)


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Jan 11, 2009)

I sometimes wish I could have f2.8 on my 10-20, but I got this Sigma at such a steal of a deal I can't really complain.  If I was in your position and could choose between the two, it would be a tough call.  

Though I almost always use my 10-20 at 10mm. (What else would I use it at?) and I'm not sure how much 10mm to 11mm matters.


----------



## thereforeiamx (Jan 11, 2009)

Dubious Drewski said:


> I sometimes wish I could have f2.8 on my 10-20, but I got this Sigma at such a steal of a deal I can't really complain.  If I was in your position and could choose between the two, it would be a tough call.
> 
> Though I almost always use my 10-20 at 10mm. (What else would I use it at?) and I'm not sure how much 10mm to 11mm matters.



steal deal? how much did you get it for? I have not much to complain about either. the Sigma 10-20mm goes pretty soft at 10mm, but is overall a really gnarly lens. Of course, there'll be barrel distortion for both lenses. Not sure how Tokina differs with Sigma in that department, but I'd expect there not to be a significant difference, since distortion for ultra wides are expected. Plus, this may sound weird, but I tested out a non-slim CP and found out that there was no vignetting at 10mm. just don't stack screw-ons


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

Speed is not an issue for me, because there are only two things I will be using this lens for: Long exposures and landscapes. Both of which don't require the extra speed. The 11-16 would be my first choice, because stopping it down to F4 or F5 would improve the quality more than F4 on the 12-24. I like the 12-24 in all respects except that it is less wide. I've heard the sigma has serious vignetting and other corner problems. Keep in mind I'm going to almost always be using a Polarizing filter (probably a cheap one) on this lens, so too much vignetting is a big no-no.

I'm going to read up on the Tokina 12-24. In the mean time, can anyone provide a picture of the Sigma at 10mm and the Tokina at 12? Just so I can see the difference.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Jan 13, 2009)

A cheap (therefore fairly thick) CPL is going to vignette on an ultrawide whether it's 10mm or 12mm. 10mm will certainly vignette more, and if the Sigma already has vignetting issues, you're looking a even more.

The Tokina also has simpler distortion, which will be easier to correct if you feel the need.

I wouldn't worry too much about the 2mm difference. It's a difference of 3.4 degrees (0.9%).


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 13, 2009)

I know that there are some reviews out there with some photos of brick walls and test patterns, I also believe that the Tokina has some light distortion that is easily corrected, but personally for most shots, I really don't care about the distortion; I consider it as part of my composition, depending on the subject of coarse.


----------

