Tokina 11-16mm OR Sigma 10-20mm

[Mardos]

Guys i need help i wanna get a Wide Angle lens.
I'm stuck between these too.
Which one do you guys think is better?

[NiMSo]

If you need the faster aperture then I would suggest the Tokina. The Sigma is also a great lens (I used to own one), but the aperture range is 1-2 stops (f/4-5.6 vs. f/2.8) slower than the Tokina, which is somewhat of a burden when shooting in poor lighting conditions. However, if you're just planning to shoot in sunny conditions, etc. then the Sigma offers more versatility in terms of focal range and is also a bit cheaper.

[adblink182]

my vote goes to the sigma.

i love mine :D

[KorruptioN]

If you need the faster aperture then I would suggest the Tokina. The Sigma is also a great lens (I used to own one), but the aperture range is 1-2 stops (f/4-5.6 vs. f/2.8) slower than the Tokina, which is somewhat of a burden when shooting in poor lighting conditions. However, if you're just planning to shoot in sunny conditions, etc. then the Sigma offers more versatility in terms of focal range and is also a bit cheaper.

Shooting in poor light isn't such a big deal with ultra-wides. Your shutter speeds don't have to be so high unless you're looking to freeze action.

[AudiDude]

Sigma 10-20

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/3154710126_cd91cc5b4a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/3154712920_63aed9539f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3153870229_0eb9b3a8df_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3154706202_6d09978404_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/3154714502_820d3af21c_b.jpg

Couldn't resist adding some photoshop flair..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/3154716220_0d5e776b8b_b.jpg

All are handheld exept Paris and New York, New York

[Babypimpin]

^ Awesome Vegas pictures!!

Wow..

Just curious...what type of settings are you using to take those kind of shots? and the camera is in manual mode I'm guessing right?

(sorry new to the DSLR scene)

[AudiDude]

^ Awesome Vegas pictures!!

Wow..

Just curious...what type of settings are you using to take those kind of shots? and the camera is in manual mode I'm guessing right?

(sorry new to the DSLR scene)

Thanks.

Definitley manual. Automatic modes keep making decisions I don't want or like most of the time. I hope when you saw the pictures you felt like you were there again. That is what I shoot for (realism) anyway.

[kay188]

Sigma 10-20

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/3154710126_cd91cc5b4a_b.jpg



Do i sense some HDR? ;)

[AudiDude]

Do i sense some HDR? ;)

Nope, I need to figure out how to stop Flickr from messing up my photos. They are actually more saturated than what you see. The palm trees are lit by lamps from beneath and every building has a light on every crevice. I dodged the sky to make the clouds as I saw them. I really don't like the HDRs that everybody does, they look like a fruit salad with wacky colours.
Vegas however, has the wacky colours without requiring HDR...

[Babypimpin]

Thanks.

Definitley manual. Automatic modes keep making decisions I don't want or like most of the time. I hope when you saw the pictures you felt like you were there again. That is what I shoot for (realism) anyway.

Definitely felt like I was there again...lol

Do you happen to remember your settings for the NY NY and Paris shots?

[AudiDude]

Definitely felt like I was there again...lol

Do you happen to remember your settings for the NY NY and Paris shots?

Canon 40D

Paris
ISO = 800
Aperture = 10
Metering Mode = Pattern
WB = Auto (3900 Kelvin)
Scene Type = Standard
Brightness = +50
Contrast = +25

NYNY
ISO = 400
Aperture = 13
Metering Mode = Pattern
WB = Auto (3150 Kelvin)
Scene Type = Standard
Tint = +3
Exposure = -.7
Brightness = +50
Contrast = +25
Recovery = 100
Fill light = 40
Brightness = 59
Contrast = 46

You'll notice with NYNY, I really had to play with it in PS to avoid blowing out the highlights, but I really wanted the clouds to show, so I overexposed the shot.

[Mardos]

Audidude
Thanks for the Pictures, they look amazing.

Thanks for tips everyone.
i will be purchasing the SIGMA :)
Can't wait to recieve it

[Mardos]

For a couple of hundred $$ extra i can get a Canon 10-20mm Will that be the better deal or stick with the sigma?

[AudiDude]

I had to make the same decision. Given the fact that I was planning to go full frame when I could afford it and the fact that the lenses were so close (I would give the edge to Canon) and the Sigma came with a lens hood (Canon cost $90 so factor that in), I went Sigma.

I really doubt that if I had the Canon on my pics they would have looked any better. Most of the differences could be altered in PS anyway. If there was a huge difference in sharpness and detail, I'd pay to get the Canon and buy the hood. Some of tests on the net show flare on the Sigma and not on the Canon, but once you know how your lens works, you will learn to cope and avoid those situations. For me, I personally have more problems with the L series lenses causing flare than the EF-S lenses I started out with.

I have never seen anybody regretting purchasing Sigma, Canon, or Tokina as their lens choice and the comparison between these has been beaten to death. They are very close. Both the Canon and Sigma at F8-11 are soooo close!!!

Here's another one to make your brain hurt..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/3161418744_5fdd16022d_b.jpg

[zoomzoom]

Those are really nice photos AudiDude (yes, I feel like I'm there again :razz: ).

I'd get one of these lens in a heartbeat if I wasn't so hung up on the fact that these lens are only for cropped bodies.

[ryan_lau100]

Those are really nice photos AudiDude (yes, I feel like I'm there again :razz: ).

I'd get one of these lens in a heartbeat if I wasn't so hung up on the fact that these lens are only for cropped bodies.

simple solution.... 16-35/2.8 if youre shooting canon.

ive used the sigma 12-24, 10-20, and own the 10-22

i would say they all perform very well. when it comes to UWA what you have to remember is you wont get the IQ you can get in the midrange and longer end. corners will always be softer than say the 24-70.

i can also vouch for both the sigma and canon. never got to try out the tokina 11-16 because they never had it in stock! settled with the 10-22 because it retains value and i got it at a good price.

gonna have to drop it for a 16-35 once i go FF later this year though.

[magical]

Since I got a FF camera, I opted to skip the canon, and tokina.

My only choices were the 17-40L canon, 12-24 sigma, or 16-35L canon.

But I did have two 11-16's on order, one for myself and one for my moms BF, this was right at the time the 5dm2 was announced and I decided to cancel my order for the 11-16. When it did come in I got to check it out, and from what I can see, this is one very very well built lens, build quality is up near the canons and well above the sigmas, and defiantly on par with the canon. The Picture quality is stunning, and the F2.8 aperture is something that can come in very very handy! Not really for landscape photography, but this thing can shine indoors and it does!

Availability is what kills this lens for most people, but if you haven't already ordered the sigma, which IMO is also a great lens, check out the tokina as it is undoubtedly a exceptional value and great lens for the price bar none (nothing comes close to it for its versatility for the price yet and its build quality/image quality is very very good).

I ended up with the 17-40L as I didn't need the extra stop, and I wanted something that would work on my full frame, plus the sigma just wasn't for me.

Either way, most of these ultra wides are great.