Tamron vs Sigma
- Thread starter oldbag
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
If you're after a lens in this range, the Tokina 11-16 is outstanding and in my view, better than either of the options you've selected. The Tokina is a f2.8 and really is good at the price.
I agree entirely, great lens. I didn't go for the Tokina because a) 11-16 is hardly a zoom and b) I use this lens for landscapes, so don't need f2.8
This.
Dyxum members ratings:
Tokina 11-16 f2.8. 12 reviews, 4.58 average score.
Sigma 10-20 f3.5. 5 reviews. 4.30 average.
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. 110 reviews, 4.27 average.
Tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.5. 9 reviews. 4.22 average.
Going on those ratings, the Tokina looks a good buy.
Tokina 11-16 f2.8. 12 reviews, 4.58 average score.
Sigma 10-20 f3.5. 5 reviews. 4.30 average.
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. 110 reviews, 4.27 average.
Tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.5. 9 reviews. 4.22 average.
Going on those ratings, the Tokina looks a good buy.
You could always go by Uncle Ken's recommendations:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/chart.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/chart.htm
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,923
- Location
- London
was in a similar boat to you - after a super wide for my d90 and after a lot of considered research i went for the tokina 11-16. Sure, it doesn't quite have the zoom range of the others, but let's be honest - with one of these lenses you'll be wanting it at the widest any way. Also, all the reviews basically said the tokina is sharper and just better overall.
The other issue is I may upgrade to a full frame camera later and do not really want to buy a fairly expensive lens and then not be able to use it. So is there any point buying one that will work on a full frame but won't be as wide on the current APS-C camera??
I've been researching these for days and am looking at the Tokina 12-24 at the moment. Well priced and you don't seem to lose much against the 11-16 other than the extra stop and 1mm.
But you gain a more usable everyday lens with the 24mm maximum focal length and it's pretty cheap to be honest and isn't a risk like the sigma.
But you gain a more usable everyday lens with the 24mm maximum focal length and it's pretty cheap to be honest and isn't a risk like the sigma.
The Tokina 11-16 is very good, but it has some downsides.
1) Tokina still have QC issues like Tamron and sigma.
2) The range is very limiting, lens that goes to 20 or 24mm can be very useful- 15-36mm equivalent is very handy.
3) 2.8 is only useful for indoor use.
If these aren't issue, then it is a great lens
1) Tokina still have QC issues like Tamron and sigma.
2) The range is very limiting, lens that goes to 20 or 24mm can be very useful- 15-36mm equivalent is very handy.
3) 2.8 is only useful for indoor use.
If these aren't issue, then it is a great lens
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
f2.8 usefulness
Agreed with points 1 and 2 above. But it really depends what other lenses you use in my view. The Tokina is an excellent UWA lens esp at the money. Any QC issues can be rectified by adjustment, repair or replacement as required.
f2.8 is massivley useful outdoors for landscapes in lower light conditions - to suggest that it is only useful for indoor use is just ridiculous. It is extremely useful for allowing longer expsoures and lower ISO on landscapes etc. Also once you have a f2.8 UWA you very quickly begin to appreciate the utility of having that flexibility indoors too.
If you have a 17-55 or similar lens (which I believe many people do) then the fact that the Tokina has a limited 11-16 range doesn't impact its usefulness.
Agreed with points 1 and 2 above. But it really depends what other lenses you use in my view. The Tokina is an excellent UWA lens esp at the money. Any QC issues can be rectified by adjustment, repair or replacement as required.
f2.8 is massivley useful outdoors for landscapes in lower light conditions - to suggest that it is only useful for indoor use is just ridiculous. It is extremely useful for allowing longer expsoures and lower ISO on landscapes etc. Also once you have a f2.8 UWA you very quickly begin to appreciate the utility of having that flexibility indoors too.
If you have a 17-55 or similar lens (which I believe many people do) then the fact that the Tokina has a limited 11-16 range doesn't impact its usefulness.
OP should note that the Tokina 12-24 is Canon/Nikon only - no Alpha mount option.
But dof would be an issue for landscapes shot wide open surely?
Except, landscape photography means tripod and any benefit of fast glass goes out the window. Although at the wide end even an aperture of 2.8 gives some DoF, you don't want to be shooting a landscape at 2.8 without a specific reason.
Maybe I shouldn't have said outdoors, but for most uses of an UWA a tripod is normally a requirement. The exception would be indoor group shots of people etc where you want a fast shutter speed.
Not sure I'd trust those Dyxum ratings if they rate the Tamron 10-24 so highly, by most regards it appears to be a dog.
I can shoot landscapes with my 24/1.4 on FX, with such wide angle lenses the DOF with the lens focused towards infinity quickly gets very deep. Of course anything nearby is out of focus, but at 11/2.8 on DX you'll struggle to get much out of focus, even on purpose.
The other advantages of fast glass are the brighter viewfinder and better autofocusing (more light on the AF sensor). You could argue that the better autofocusing is pointless if you're setting hyperfocal distances.
I can shoot landscapes with my 24/1.4 on FX, with such wide angle lenses the DOF with the lens focused towards infinity quickly gets very deep. Of course anything nearby is out of focus, but at 11/2.8 on DX you'll struggle to get much out of focus, even on purpose.
The other advantages of fast glass are the brighter viewfinder and better autofocusing (more light on the AF sensor). You could argue that the better autofocusing is pointless if you're setting hyperfocal distances.