Nikon WIDE angle lenses 12-24 or 10-20mm (Nikon or Sigma)

[alrmj]

Hi there

Looking at purchasing a Wide angle zoom lense, maybe even a Fish eye.

Has anyone used the Nikon ans Sigma variants?

There are two Sigma variants aswell, which is best?

How about Fish eye?

I uses a Nikon D70s.

A

[prinothcat]

the nikon 12 -24 is a very nice lens but very expensive also. I would also consider a Tokina 12-24 f4. Is reported to be built better than and out performs the sigma version. If you're not predisposed to disliking Ken Rockwell (many seem to be) he shot the Nikon, Tamron, Sigma and Tokina versions of this lens side by side and has posted the results on his website. Wide Angle Comparision There is also an 11-16 due out from Tokina in the next 60 days I hear. It would pair nicely witht he 16-85 Nikkor recently realaesed.

[dang]

I own a Sigma 10-20, and love it. I debated the getting a Tokina, but after reading reviews I opted to go with the wider angle and haven't regretted it. I'm not the best with processing, but you can see some sample shots here: http://www.dangphoto.net

For more comparisons of these lenses, you can check the camera database here: http://www.pbase.com/cameras

[dharden]

I'd second dang on that - I used to own a Sigma 10-20 and it was a great lens (OK it was on Canon but still a great lens for the money!). It can stretch and soften details at the edges slightly at 10mm but the field of view is fantastic! I only changed it because I went full frame. I've got a few samples on my galleries too - they're mainly on the Lake District one, I think...here's one: http://www.pbase.com/dharden/image/69559135.jpg

The Sigma 12-24, if you get a good copy (which also applies to the 10-20 - always test a Sigma and be prepared to send it straight back if all is not well, for a replacement) is very sharp and quite highly rated for interior work on full frame bodies so should be even better on a 'crop' camera. However if you want to do landscape it's not particularly practical cos you cant front mount filters such as grads on it....

There's also a Tamron 11-18 which isn't a bad lens either, although the last tamron lens i had produced rather "yellow" pictures so i haven't bought one of theirs since....


Fish eye lenses are quite specialist. If you're after "normal" but wide views then you need a rectilinear lens such as the ones already discussed here...

HTH!

[adz929]

I too love my Sigma 10-20, it stays on my camera most of the time. My gallery is chock full of images from it.

[jestev]

I was in the same comparison a year ago and decided on the Tokina 12-24. I ditched the Sigmas pretty quickly, and decided on the Tokina because it is almost (if not exactly) as good as the Nikon variant while being significantly cheaper.

I have never regretted it -- wonderful lens.

[alrmj]

Dear all, thank you for all your comments, keep them coming.

I'll look through your galleries now.

I am still interested in the fish eye, and appreciate it will give a different perspective, would you all rather use the wide angle or fish eye?

[prinothcat]

would you all rather use the wide angle or fish eye?

While I would be intregued by the fisheye, I would find little regular use for it. An ultrawide in the 10/11mm range is much more useful to me shooting architecture and landscapes.

[dang]

would you all rather use the wide angle or fish eye?

While I would be intregued by the fisheye, I would find little regular use for it. An ultrawide in the 10/11mm range is much more useful to me shooting architecture and landscapes.

I agree. While I'd like a fish eye, it wasn't my first choice. There's few places locally where I make good use of the 10-20, so I'd find even less use for one. I tend to look at a fish eye as more of a specialty lens, where the 10-20 stays on one of my bodies whenever I have a chance to visit someplace of interest. I like the ability to zoom in and minimize distortions, which wouldn't be an option with a fixed lens. And to get the best of a fish, I'd prefer a full frame body. The 10-20 is my favorite lens so far, outside of my 100mm macro, which I use constantly for shooting insects. I think it depends on what you're wanting to shot, as to which choice you make. That's something only you can answer. I feel getting a fish similar to my Canon 65mm 1-5X macro, which I purchased after the 100mm knowing it would be for specialty shots.

[dharden]

i've never personally seen a use for a fisheye lens, but I have seen them used to good effect.

It all depends what images you want to produce really - for me, wanting to take landscapes, I have no real need of a fisheye and currently get a lot of use out of Canon's 17-40 on my 5D body (it's pretty much the same view as using the 10-20 on a "crop" body, although on a Nikon you'll get a 15mm equivalent field of view).

If you want to be creative in an 'off the wall' style then the fisheye could have it's uses for you. In this case i'd recommend a good look through the camera database at people's images from such lenses and see if you think that's for you.

My personal choice would be the Sigma 10-20 but you MUST MUST MUST check it on receipt, do the pixel peeping and make sure it's performing as it should. It is possible to get a bad one and that would be frustrating for you. Don't be perturbed by slightly soft edges as long as they're uniform both sides - it's the nature of such a wide lens unfortunately!