[low.pfile]

I was planning on getting a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6, but seem to be swaying toward the nikkor 14-24mm f2.8. not a fair comparison I know. Curious if any Nikon shooters have either?

ed  ....D80

[Vapor Audio]

I have or have had both, and the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24/4.  The 14-24/2.8 is pointless on a D80, it's meant for the full-frame D3 (and it IS stunning on a D3).  The Sigma is a nice lens, so is the Tokina, but the Nikon DX wide-angle is worth the extra $$$.  Now before you write that off as Nikon elitism, know that I dumped my Nikon 28-70/2.8 for an optically superior copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 ... and my primary sports lens is the Sigma 120-300/2.8

[Upstateaudio]

I have or have had both, and the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24/4.  The 14-24/2.8 is pointless on a D80, it's meant for the full-frame D3 (and it IS stunning on a D3).  The Sigma is a nice lens, so is the Tokina, but the Nikon DX wide-angle is worth the extra $$$.  Now before you write that off as Nikon elitism, know that I dumped my Nikon 28-70/2.8 for an optically superior copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 ... and my primary sports lens is the Sigma 120-300/2.8

Do you mean the 12-24mm F4 Nikkor rather than the 14-24?

[low.pfile]

You are correct Turbo the 14-24 is not right for me....

Regarding the Nikon lenses: the 12-14 ƒ4 is a DX lens while the 14-24 ƒ2.8 is an FX(full frame) lens. I lean towards maximum aperture for indoor low light so the ƒ2.8 is very appealing.

Disregarding the stellar optics, the 14-24 has so many practical negatives.....no filter ability, weight and cost. So it really isn't a contender for amatuer photo guy me.  So it would really be the 12-24 vs the Sigma.

I have been looking at all the forums and it's just as dizzyings as audio but the selection is less...whew!
I've been reading up at dpreview. KenRockwell, byThom, photo.net, and nikonians, etc. This nikonians.com thread was the most helpful resource in getting me to conclude that the Sigma zoom will be appropriate for me. though having had issues with a Sigma 30 ƒ1.4 front focus, so I have some apprehension. But it is a shooting match with getting a good version. So if I get a bad 10-20mm I will return it for another. May try another 30 someday. it's so fast!

cheers,
ed

[Vapor Audio]

Regarding wide-angles and low-light, the great thing is with steady hands you can get sharp shots hand-held at shutters as slow as 1/3 sec at 12mm.  That makes max aperature much less important, and DOF at 12mm is about 5 miles anyway 

Enjoy the Sigma, it's a good lens as long as you get a good copy.  But if you get one that's off send it to Sigma, don't return it.  Chances are you'll get a better lens if it's recalibrated by the factory than you will with a new lens.  I've had a couple lenses recalibrated by the factory, one Sigma and one Tamron, both came back stellar.

[low.pfile]

Regarding wide-angles and low-light, the great thing is with steady hands you can get sharp shots hand-held at shutters as slow as 1/3 sec at 12mm.  That makes max aperature much less important, and DOF at 12mm is about 5 miles anyway 

Enjoy the Sigma, it's a good lens as long as you get a good copy.  But if you get one that's off send it to Sigma, don't return it.  Chances are you'll get a better lens if it's recalibrated by the factory than you will with a new lens.  I've had a couple lenses recalibrated by the factory, one Sigma and one Tamron, both came back stellar.

Great advice. I really meant recalibration. I hear it's all the rage....

[ooheadsoo]

I've briefly used both the 10-20 sigma and the 12-24 nikon.  Both are nice, but oddly enough, the sigma 10-20mm I handled together was the best feeling autofocus lens I've used to date, possibly barring only the nikon 70-200 f/2.8 I rented.  I will be buying the sigma 10-20mm as soon as I can afford it.  I think you made a great choice. 

For indoor low light people shots, I find flash to be handy for many situations.  F/2.8 often still isn't fast enough to freeze motion/freeze hand shake, and they don't have autofocus (afaik) faster than f/2.8, so flash is often the most practical solution. 

[lazydays]

Regarding wide-angles and low-light, the great thing is with steady hands you can get sharp shots hand-held at shutters as slow as 1/3 sec at 12mm.  That makes max aperature much less important, and DOF at 12mm is about 5 miles anyway 

Enjoy the Sigma, it's a good lens as long as you get a good copy.  But if you get one that's off send it to Sigma, don't return it.  Chances are you'll get a better lens if it's recalibrated by the factory than you will with a new lens.  I've had a couple lenses recalibrated by the factory, one Sigma and one Tamron, both came back stellar.

I own that Sigma, and it's a great lense for sure. Better than the Nikon lense by a long shot, but as gopod as it is the Tokina 12/24 is better in the extremes. I used the Nikon awhile and it was OK, but just wasn't quite as good. The Tokina is built better than the Sigma, and seems to have less distortion. I wish I'd have bought the Tokina instead.
gary

[ooheadsoo]

I've never tried the Tokina, but I'm borrowing the Sigma 10-20 from my friend right now and it definitely has some of the best build that I've handled.

[lazydays]

I've never tried the Tokina, but I'm borrowing the Sigma 10-20 from my friend right now and it definitely has some of the best build that I've handled.

The one thing I find the Tokina has over the Sigmas is in the lense flare catagory. I shoot a lot of sunset pics looking into the sun, and the flares are less with the Tokinas (they're still there but much smaller). Also I've found less distortion with the Tokinas at extreme settings.
gary

[Vapor Audio]

I'm not sure how much use you guys really have with all the wide-angles, but I can say that I've  exhaustively compared them all - the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18, Tokina 12-24, and Nikon 12-24.  Actually I've had 3 copies of the Sigma, 1 of the Tamron, 2 of the Tokina, and 2 of the Nikon. 

As a Pro shooter I cannot accept lenses with any unusable ranges, and the only one that I felt comfortable using in any aperature/focal length setting is the Nikon.  It's also the only one who's focus was 100% guaranteed to be spot on.  Of the group the Tamron was the loser, it couldn't lock on focus for anything, and the outer 1/3 edge of the frame at anything under f/8 were horrid at 11mm.  The next loser for me was the Sigma, it had the worst CA of any lens I've ever seen, completely unfixable in post processing.  The only way you could avoid the CA was to stop it down to at least f/8 when shooting 14mm or wider.  The edges were also heavily distorted and much less sharp than the center at 14mm or wider and any f/stop.  The Sigma does have decent build though, and it's focus accuracy and speed was 2nd to the Nikon.  Another big minus for the Sigma is a variable aperature.  The Tokina was closest to the Nikon optically, the Nikon being only slightly sharper at the edges when wide open or near it - when stopped down they were both equals.  Another area the Nikon beats them all is color and contrast, the Nikon easily being the most saturated of the bunch, the Tokina had the least saturated images especially when wide open.

I'd have to question the experience or impartiality of anyone who says the Sigma beats the Nikon by a long-shot, that's simply not true.  Of the bunch the Nikon is the only lens I can use anywhere across it's range, in any light conditions, and not worry about results or the lens' sweet spot.  All the others have weaknesses you must be aware of and work around the get good results.

[lazydays]

I'm not sure how much use you guys really have with all the wide-angles, but I can say that I've  exhaustively compared them all - the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18, Tokina 12-24, and Nikon 12-24.  Actually I've had 3 copies of the Sigma, 1 of the Tamron, 2 of the Tokina, and 2 of the Nikon. 

As a Pro shooter I cannot accept lenses with any unusable ranges, and the only one that I felt comfortable using in any aperature/focal length setting is the Nikon.  It's also the only one who's focus was 100% guaranteed to be spot on.  Of the group the Tamron was the loser, it couldn't lock on focus for anything, and the outer 1/3 edge of the frame at anything under f/8 were horrid at 11mm.  The next loser for me was the Sigma, it had the worst CA of any lens I've ever seen, completely unfixable in post processing.  The only way you could avoid the CA was to stop it down to at least f/8 when shooting 14mm or wider.  The edges were also heavily distorted and much less sharp than the center at 14mm or wider and any f/stop.  The Sigma does have decent build though, and it's focus accuracy and speed was 2nd to the Nikon.  Another big minus for the Sigma is a variable aperature.  The Tokina was closest to the Nikon optically, the Nikon being only slightly sharper at the edges when wide open or near it - when stopped down they were both equals.  Another area the Nikon beats them all is color and contrast, the Nikon easily being the most saturated of the bunch, the Tokina had the least saturated images especially when wide open.

I'd have to question the experience or impartiality of anyone who says the Sigma beats the Nikon by a long-shot, that's simply not true.  Of the bunch the Nikon is the only lens I can use anywhere across it's range, in any light conditions, and not worry about results or the lens' sweet spot.  All the others have weaknesses you must be aware of and work around the get good results.

This is begining to sound like the guy I know who shoots nothing but Canons. He got the regular "error 99", and sends it back for repair (I could buy two DX3's for the price of that Canon). And then six months later sends it back for the same problem. But if you asked him he'd tell you it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
    Yes it would be nice to have three 12/24 lenses to compair shots at the samething and within ten minutes of each other. Yet most of us are not that rich, or don't own a camera store. My findings are from my own personal experience.
and we do seem to parallel each other on a lot of things. Virtually all my prime lenses are from Nikon (true Japanese lenses), and I love them no matter what the factor you have to figure in with them. But I think their zoom lenses are just average to upper middle of the pack. The Sigma (I use four with a Nikon mount)are very good lenses to say the least, but not perfect (is there a perfect lense?). The first one I had was so quiet that I thought it was broke! Does it focus well? I have a night club I often shoot black & whites in, and is a bear to get a good autofocus to work in. It's no better than anything else if not a little worse. Nikon prime lenses work well in there, but their zooms don't (figure?)
Your most right about the color saturation problems. Once again the prime lenses work best (have had lots and lots of problems with reds in the past at one place where nothing but my el cheapo Samsung gets it right) Of the zooms I've used in there, the 19 / 35 Tokina does the best job of anything I have (and it's really a film lense). In the end I'd strongly suspect that the new Pentax K20d using the Schnider glass will be the ticket. But I'll probably never know for sure because I won't have one. I do know the $6K Cannons and the DX2's won't work there.
gary

[Levi]

Gents, I have a Nikon 12-24mm and I think it is a great DX lens!

Here is a comparison between my Nikon 17-35mm and Nikon 12-24mm at their widest settings.



and...



Ultimately at night...



I would only use Nikon lenses for my Nikon cameras.  I know there are other excellent lense manufacturer out there but that is just me. 

-Levi