Nikon/Sigma or Tokina 12-24
- Thread starter nemesis32
- Start date
- Status
nemesis32 said:Based on most reviews, Sigma is not really recommended for Digital camera for several reasons.
Point taken.
I like the Sigma for its (near) distortion-free architectural shots. But its weight and slowness may become an issue with regular usage... May go for the Nikon for its lighter weight and constant F4 (big plus!).
However, the Tokina seems like a good compromise -- with constant F4 and lighter than the Sigma. And I heard is cheaper than the Sigma.
Nemesis: please post some pics and comments after you get the Tokina, as you seem keen to get it, right?Hope it is available before LNY, as 12-24mm will be ideal (for me) for those wide-angle indoor shoots during LNY.
BlueFly said:nemesis32 said:Based on most reviews, Sigma is not really recommended for Digital camera for several reasons.
Point taken.
I like the Sigma for its (near) distortion-free architectural shots. But its weight and slowness may become an issue with regular usage... May go for the Nikon for its lighter weight and constant F4 (big plus!).
However, the Tokina seems like a good compromise -- with constant F4 and lighter than the Sigma. And I heard is cheaper than the Sigma.
Nemesis: please post some pics and comments after you get the Tokina, as you seem keen to get it, right?
Yes.. i am keen on getting the tokina... provided the diff with nikon 12-24mm (price) is big. If only save 2-300 then i will buy nikon as it may work better with other things like Flash etc. Also, in terms of lens, Nikon still have the better lens like the ED lens.
That said, i own several excellent tokina lens as they are fast (not as fast as AFS) and excellent built (as compared with Tamron and Sigma).
BlueFly said:dude, weight and slowness becoming an issue with regular usage?!nemesis32 said:Based on most reviews, Sigma is not really recommended for Digital camera for several reasons.
Point taken.
I like the Sigma for its (near) distortion-free architectural shots. But its weight and slowness may become an issue with regular usage... May go for the Nikon for its lighter weight and constant F4 (big plus!).
However, the Tokina seems like a good compromise -- with constant F4 and lighter than the Sigma. And I heard is cheaper than the Sigma.
Nemesis: please post some pics and comments after you get the Tokina, as you seem keen to get it, right?
f/4 vs f4.5 - 5.6... how much more light and shutter speed can u get with a difference between 4 and 4.5? since the purpose of the lens is to shoot at the widest focal length.
furthermore, most people will shoot at f/8 to get the best image quality. and i can say that even wide open, the sigma is better if not on par with the nikkor.
weight is never an issue when u're looking for good quality images.
the ONLY issue with the sigma lens is the exposed front element cuz it's not able to take a filter.
other than that, it totally beats the nikkor.
Clown said:
Constant F4 is definitely superior to an f4.5-5.6 lens as we are talking abt almost 2 stops difference.
It's true that most people will use the wide angle and shoot at smaller aperture from F8 onwards. However, some people (like me) do like to shot people with wide angle to get some distortion (esp useful with kids with funny expression) and a constant F4 will be useful as the bokeh will be much better.
Weight is an issue.. believe it or not. F100 sells so well because F5 is too heavy even for the pros. Thats y nikon reduce the weight of F6. Also, when you are out, wide angle lens shd be the lightest except for maybe prime lens as you will prob lug around another 2 lens and a body. If you are tired, you won't have the energy to shoot and not so alert.
As for quality in terms of performance, I have yet to see so difficult to compare. However, it would be hard to imagine that optically a constant f4 nikon lens will lose out to a sigma f4.5-5.6 lens.
No lar, for the wide end it's just 1/3 stop diff. For the long end it's just 1 stop. For wide angle and its intended usage be it outdoors and indoors, i think it's actually insignificant. Or maybe someone can enlighten me with a shooting condition in which you need relatively fast shutter for a subject that would be moving close to you as it fills up the frame effectively.nemesis32 said:
For a 2.8 vs 4 longer focal range lens (eg 28-75 or 70-200 range), it's different.....
Anyway the diff in weight is just 135g. Think that's the weight of a heavy HP.
canon user - sigma lens, so can't make comments on nikon 12-24 though.
as far as the weight of the sigma 12-24 goes, its pretty ok, doesn't feel heavy at all (unless the only lens you've been using is a 50mm f1.8)
but an interesting read here on fast != better
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fast.html
and between f/4 and f/4.5 if you're shooting indoors, you will still need a flash right..., and if I'm using a flash, I don't shoot wide open either, its f/8-f/11
so I think it comes down to balance weight with cost and distortion.
as far as the weight of the sigma 12-24 goes, its pretty ok, doesn't feel heavy at all (unless the only lens you've been using is a 50mm f1.8)
but an interesting read here on fast != better
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fast.html
and between f/4 and f/4.5 if you're shooting indoors, you will still need a flash right..., and if I'm using a flash, I don't shoot wide open either, its f/8-f/11
so I think it comes down to balance weight with cost and distortion.
At 12mm to 20mm range, the DOF is very wide, even for F4.0. To get out of focus blurs, wide angles don't really cut it. And bokeh has nothing to do with apertures, it is a quality of the blured point lights (whether sharp edged, ringed or smooth).
I do know that the Nikon is of better glass and coatings, and probably focuses faster and more accurately. But at 50% more cost? And for those still on 135 film, the Sigma will give true 12mm rectilinear!
I agree with Clown, the biggest problem with the Sigma is the cyclops bulge, not allowing front filters and possibly flaring. The Sigma is certainly value for money in my very personal opinion, and I will probably buy the Sigma over the Nikon for versatility (135 and D-SLR).
I do know that the Nikon is of better glass and coatings, and probably focuses faster and more accurately. But at 50% more cost? And for those still on 135 film, the Sigma will give true 12mm rectilinear!
I agree with Clown, the biggest problem with the Sigma is the cyclops bulge, not allowing front filters and possibly flaring. The Sigma is certainly value for money in my very personal opinion, and I will probably buy the Sigma over the Nikon for versatility (135 and D-SLR).
nemesis32 said:
bro, f/4 to f/5.6 is 1 stop. f/4.5 is a half stop.
as yowch said, 12-24 has almost totally no bokeh at any aperture unless ur focus (the kid's face) is at like 30cm away..
the weight issue between the F5 and F100 cannot be said so simply cuz the only practical difference between the F5 and the F100 is the weight. the AF module is the same, the metering module is the same, but the weight difference is like a world apart. not so when comparing these 2 lenses tho, cuz the sigma has lesser CA and distortion. focussing speeds are on par cuz of the hsm motor. one thing i must admit tho, the sigma lens is prone to flares cuz of its buldging front element.
as for quality wise, i remember there were some comparisons already done using both lenses on same targets. the nikkor's CA literally scared me away.
Ok, let me first say that I have nothing against this post but I will comments on some of the points here:
Bokeh has nothing to do with aperture?
Bokeh is affected by the aperture (together with the lens elements itself). The number of blades in the aperture determines the "roundness" of the aperture, thus determining the smoothness (especially when there are backlights) of the bokeh. So wide open vs closed down, # of blades do affect the bokeh but whether it affects it significantly, it would be on the photographer's choice.
Not really, even at 18mm, if you do take group photo, the backlight or background will come into play. It may not be important to you, but you can't say "don't really cut it".yowch said:
Bokeh has nothing to do with aperture?
Bokeh is affected by the aperture (together with the lens elements itself). The number of blades in the aperture determines the "roundness" of the aperture, thus determining the smoothness (especially when there are backlights) of the bokeh. So wide open vs closed down, # of blades do affect the bokeh but whether it affects it significantly, it would be on the photographer's choice.Eh...Clown said:
No CA from my lens. From [URL="http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=105222&page=1]my previous posts[/URL], 100% crop, none has CA with high contrast images.
Even [URL="http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS12-24DX_rev03.html#top_page]Bjørn Rørslett's[/URL] review, he did mention CA at 12mm, but to such a small degree, it becomes totally nick-picking to complain. If you want to see CA, check out the corners of the Sigma at 12 on full frame. I heard that it is worse.
Watcher said:Not really, even at 18mm, if you do take group photo, the backlight or background will come into play. It may not be important to you, but you can't say "don't really cut it".
Bokeh has nothing to do with aperture?
Yes, f4.0 is better than f4.5, I certainly agree. To pay $500 extra for that is a decision of the buyer.
Out-of-focus blur is due to wide apertures giving shallow depth-of-field. Given the same focal length, and the same aperture size, the dof will be the same, even if one lens has 4-bladed iris and another has rounded 12-bladed iris. Bokeh is the measure of the smoothness of the out-of-focus blur, and more blades (better rounded) will give better bokeh. So number of blades do affect the bokeh (I agree), the Sigma has 6, the Nikon has 7. The plus is that the Nikon has rounded blades. So, when you do achieve VERY shallow depth of field, and there are point lights in the backgroound, you get smooth out-of-focus lights which are better on the Nikon. I agree. Again, it is first difficult for wide angle lens to get shallow dof, so part of the $500 extra will be for this better bokeh.
I am aware that the Nikon can be used on full frame at 18-24 range, but from all the reviews I have read, it has pretty bad fall off at the edges, as the lens is really a DX design.
According to my DOF calculator, at f4.0, widest at 12mm, the hyperfocal is 1.8m, which is a standard shooting distance. That means everything will be in focus!
From here on, all personal opinions.
Spending $1100 for the Sigma gives me the option of 12mm on film, while $1600 on the Nikon gives me 1/2 stop better aperture. The Nikon gives slightly faster autofocus, I suppose, and maybe a little bit more of shallow dof and when I really hit some point lights, better bokeh in the oof areas. Of course, as said, the Sigma is more prone to side flaring and damage due to handling. This will be the consideration for the $500 difference. If I can afford not to think about $500, I'll go straight for the Nikon for the Nikon quality. If I can afford not to think about $2700, I'll buy both, for the DSLR and my humble F80.
You forgot the long endyowch said:
f/4 is better than f/5.6 as well. <talk about bokeh cropped>
As I said, I more or less agreed to what you had said but to say that "bokeh has nothing to do with apertures" is technically wrong, just like saying the speed of light is infinite. Just because you don't or cannot travel at that speed, does not mean it can be stated wrongly...
Of which range does the light fall off? 12-16/17 on a 24x36mm frame? It is a DX lens. From 18-24, none at all. On a DSLR, none significant across the whole range of zoom. Don't forget that the equivalent image is about 18-36 on 35mm... So you're not exactly missing on the wide end, with a 17-55 or 28-70 supplementing...yowch said:
You forgot that you can't mount standard filters except those that needed special holders like the Cokin or the Lee filters. If I already have the set of say 77mm filters, then if I need them on the sigma, like say a circular polarizer, I would need to buy another filter which would be at least 82mm which cannot be mounted on the lens... The price of a good cir-pol at 82mm will make up about 50% of the difference betweeen the prices, if you can find them in the first place...yowch said:
to add on, even just mounting the cokin 82mm adapter i still see some vignette from the viewfinder of 20D, and it shows on the pic as wellWatcher said:
loupgarou can vouge for that, i was trying on his cam
i wonder how much vignette will i see if i just put on the sigma adapter on a full-frame sensor (no filter) :think:
- Status
Similar threads
