All three of these are comparable in terms of size, weight, and filter size. They all get fairly good reviews. The Sigma and Tokina are about half the price of the Nikon.
Is there any compelling reason to choose one over the others? Any recommendations?
Thanks,
Posted by Basil Greber on April 23, 2007 at 4:03 PM
I have the Tokina - got it recently, so I can not yet show good samples. It's sharp, and extremely well built. You should know that it has fairly strong CA on a 10 MP body, so you'll need the post-processing tools to correct for that. Otherwise, it's a nice lens.
The consensus seems to be that the Nikon is a little bit better. But not twice as good.
Basil
Posted by Bill Chambers on April 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I would agree with Basil. I have the Tokina, and have been impressed with it. It's the first non-Nikkor lens I've ever purchased, and I was a bit nervous about it, but the build quality is excellent, and the sharpness appears to be very good. From what i understand the sharpness is slightly better with the Nikon, but only very slightly. The CA with the Nikon is supposed to be a good bit better, but that's an easy fix in PS, and wasn't worth the extra $500 to me.
A good review of all three lenses can be found on Nikoians. Link is HERE
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 23, 2007 at 6:36 PM
All are good choices. I went with the Sigma 10-20mm partly because it is just a touch wider. I have not had any problems with CA from this lens. I've used it almost daily since getting it in December and it's performed flawlessly. I sometimes wish it was faster, and have been toying with the idea of getting the Nikon 10.5mm f2.8. That lens has it's own set of problems though. Based on my own use, I can recommend the Sigma.
I can pipe up for the Nikon. It's so useful and good that my wife and I are considering buying another. We pass it back and forth all the time, and too often it's in the wrong camera bag (hers) when I need it. Yeah, it's more expensive than the others, and if they come close in performance you'll have to be the judge on whether the difference in price is justified.
There are several things I like about the Tokina 12-24 over the Nikon. The main one is the focusing scale, it's got a lot of reference points, which makes setting hyperfocal points very easy.
It also has the zoom and focusing rings where they're supposed to be
for some reason, Nikon has place the focusing ring on the closest to the camera body and the zoom ring on the far side, which is opposite of what I'm used to with Nikon lenses.
As others have mentioned, the lens is built extremely well and gets good reviews for sharpness. And at $500, it's a much better deal than the Nikon lens.
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 23, 2007 at 10:56 PM
LOL guys! One "plus" vote for each lens! We aren't making things easy for him, are we!
Kent in SD
Posted by Mark Stahlke on April 23, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Actually Kent, I count three votes for the Tokina and one each for the Nikon and Sigma. At this point I'm leaning towards the Tokina but, like Bill, I'm nervous about it for the same reason: It would be my first non-Nikon lens.
Bill, thanks for the Nikonians link. I hadn't seen that review and it was good to compare them side by side.
Basil raises a good point when he questions whether the Nikon is twice as good as the others. I'm having a hard time justifying paying a hundred dollars a piece for two Ns, an I, a K, and an O.
Discussion
7 repliesNikon 12-24 f/4
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Tokina 12-24 f/4
All three of these are comparable in terms of size, weight, and filter size. They all get fairly good reviews. The Sigma and Tokina are about half the price of the Nikon.
Is there any compelling reason to choose one over the others? Any recommendations?
Thanks,
The consensus seems to be that the Nikon is a little bit better. But not twice as good.
Basil
A good review of all three lenses can be found on Nikoians. Link is HERE
Kent in SD
It also has the zoom and focusing rings where they're supposed to be
for some reason, Nikon has place the focusing ring on the closest to the camera body and the zoom ring on the far side, which is opposite of what I'm used to with Nikon lenses.
As others have mentioned, the lens is built extremely well and gets good reviews for sharpness. And at $500, it's a much better deal than the Nikon lens.
Kent in SD
Bill, thanks for the Nikonians link. I hadn't seen that review and it was good to compare them side by side.
Basil raises a good point when he questions whether the Nikon is twice as good as the others. I'm having a hard time justifying paying a hundred dollars a piece for two Ns, an I, a K, and an O.
Thanks,