[Farno]

As stated, what other options are there Nikon mount?
I've played with the 10-20 Sigma and must admit it fell short of my expectations.
Looking for something along the lines of 15+ for landscapes.

[RobDickinson]

15+ what, focal length?

How did the 10-20 fall short of your expectations?

(BTW I love mine and its mostly stuck at 10mm).

Options are the sigma 12-24, tamron 11-16, tokina 10-24, nikon 14-24f2.8 etc.

[dazza74]

I had the sigma 10-20 and couldn't get on with it just seemed very soft when you started getting to smaller apertures like F16 but could just be me, I've seen plenty good shots taken with this lens. Recently bought a 2nd hand Nikkor 12-24 and really like it I think the tamron 17-50 2.8 will struggle to get a look in from now on I find it that good. Seems the new Tokina 11-16 2.8 is the pick of the bunch from what I've read regarding the UWA.

[mij]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I had the sigma 10-20 and couldn't get on with it just seemed very soft when you started getting to smaller apertures like F16 but could just be me, I've seen plenty good shots taken with this lens. Recently bought a 2nd hand Nikkor 12-24 and really like it I think the tamron 17-50 2.8 will struggle to get a look in from now on I find it that good. Seems the new Tokina 11-16 2.8 is the pick of the bunch from what I've read regarding the UWA.

Sorry for going off topic, how much better would you rate the Tamron 17-50mm over the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens?

I am assuming that you have used the kit lens.

Thanks

[Paulie-W]

I'm wondering just how much more than 15 you actually want, and do you really need a fast lens for landscape?

[springtide]

I've a friend (with a D300) that has switched from the Sigma 10-20 to the new Tokina 11-16 2.8 and says the IQ is much better.

I think the only problem with the Tokia seemed to be getting hold of a copy (not sure if it's still the same now, but they were in short supply)

[Farno]

I may have been tipsy when i posted started this thread

Can i use my P type filters on a Sigma 10-20 or will you 'see' the holder?
Whats putting me off, nothing that i can point a finger at and say 'That' , but something just doesnt sit right, maybe it was the type of shot I was trying or the location [didnt really lend itself to ultra wide]
These price rises are getting daft now. I have the money for the Nikon 12-24, but now its just getting crazy.

[mrpink123]

Originally Posted by Farno

I may have been tipsy when i posted started this thread

Can i use my P type filters on a Sigma 10-20 or will you 'see' the holder?
Whats putting me off, nothing that i can point a finger at and say 'That' , but something just doesnt sit right, maybe it was the type of shot I was trying or the location [didnt really lend itself to ultra wide]
These price rises are getting daft now. I have the money for the Nikon 12-24, but now its just getting crazy.

Sounds like the problem might be with the composition of the images rather than the lens? The Sigma 10-20 is very well thought of, I'd love one myself (finances sadly don't allow it)

[Paulie-W]

You can get a special wide angle holder for it and will only see a tad of vignetting at the widest (10mm).

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I had the sigma 10-20 and couldn't get on with it just seemed very soft when you started getting to smaller apertures like F16 but could just be me, I've seen plenty good shots taken with this lens. Recently bought a 2nd hand Nikkor 12-24 and really like it I think the tamron 17-50 2.8 will struggle to get a look in from now on I find it that good. Seems the new Tokina 11-16 2.8 is the pick of the bunch from what I've read regarding the UWA.

Uh you do realise that diffraction will kick in at f10-11 or so making any image with any lens soft at smaller apertures?

And that at f8 you get a HUGE depth of field if you use hyperfocal distance etc there realy isnt much need (apart from slow shutter speeds) to go above f10.

I use cokin P (normal holder) with my 10-20 it can be an issue below 12mm sometimes.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

Uh you do realise that diffraction will kick in at f10-11 or so making any image with any lens soft at smaller apertures?

And that at f8 you get a HUGE depth of field if you use hyperfocal distance etc there realy isnt much need (apart from slow shutter speeds) to go above f10.

I use cokin P (normal holder) with my 10-20 it can be an issue below 12mm sometimes.

It's people like you that remind me why I spend less and less time on this section of the forum.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by mij

Sorry for going off topic, how much better would you rate the Tamron 17-50mm over the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens?

I am assuming that you have used the kit lens.

Thanks

Never had the 18-55, I started with the kit lens for the D80 which was the 18-70mm DX. How much better I don't know I think we all suffer with some form of placebo effect when dropping good money on any new lens. Great versatility the 17-50 2.8 for me you can use it as a portrait lens due to being 2.8 and makes a lot of sense I feel given the relatively high costs of faster primes, not bad on the landscape front either. Nice replacement for a kit lens I feel money well spent.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by dazza74

It's people like you that remind me why I spend less and less time on this section of the forum.

That's a bit harsh. I thought his explanation to the issues you've been having were both accurate and fair.

Maybe it was just the the use of the word 'Uh'?

Back OT - I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4 which I've been very pleased with. Great build quality, and apart from the chromatic aberration issues in areas of high contrast, the image quality is excellent.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

That's a bit harsh. I thought his explanation to the issues you've been having were both accurate and fair.

Maybe it was just the the use of the word 'Uh'?

I felt it was a bit patronising as a post to be honest and still do, pretty sure if you'd made a similar comment you wouldn't have received that reply.

[granty_]

Im not happy, placed an order for a 10-20mm Sigma from Cameraworld. They emailed today
basically "Sorry no stock for Sony, when we have them they will be at new stock prices". Charming.

They have updated Sony prices today Sony Fit Sigma 10-20mm

Note the Sale price is £399.99 but it was apparently before the sale £313!!

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I felt it was a bit patronising as a post to be honest and still do, pretty sure if you'd made a similar comment you wouldn't have received that reply.

I suspect Liquid101 wouldnt blame a lens for softness when something else was the issue.

I didnt mean to be patronising , just explaining the cause of the issue you were having, and it will be aparent on any lens.

Feel free to critizise the sigma wide open though... :P

[senu]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I felt it was a bit patronising as a post to be honest and still do, pretty sure if you'd made a similar comment you wouldn't have received that reply.

You could ( perhaps) have given him the benefit of doubt though as non face to face communication can be prone to easy misinterpretation
Apart from "uh" it is a seemingly perfectly innocent expalantion ( IMHO)

Back on track ,What is not untrue is that the benefits of smaller aperture for sharpness have a narrow range and all these lenses have a sweet spot for Focal length and aperture

I also have the Tokina 12-24 ( on a Canon mount) which Im very happy with

PS: Rob was posting at the same time, it seems

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by senu

You could ( perhaps) have given him the benefit of doubt though as non face to face communication can be prone to easy misinterpretation
Apart from "uh" it is a seemingly perfectly innocent expalantion ( IMHO)

Landscape photography is basically all I do, I think the comments along the lines of have I heard of "Hyperfocal Distancing" tipped me over the proverbial edge

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by dazza74

Landscape photography is basically all I do, I think the comments along the lines of have I heard of "Hyperfocal Distancing" tipped me over the proverbial edge

'If you use' I think you'll find..... And for some technical reasons its not always the appropriate thing to use either.

Sorry for offering advice, I shant bother from now on.

[Mike.P®]

New version of the 10-20mm announced with a constant f3.5.
Could be interesting.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

Sorry for offering advice, I shant bother from now on.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't in my case

[chrisgeary]

I, too, have found the Sigma 10-20 soft, but then I have a pretty good benchmark lens in the Canon EF-S 60mm. Ok, not the same focal length but it makes me realise what a quality lens is capable of. I guess a wide zoom is always going to be a compromise, especially at Sigma's price point. I might be wrong, but I don't think Canon's offering is many leagues ahead of Sigma in the sharpness department - for super wide, super sharp shots, is a prime really the only way forward?

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by chrisgeary

I, too, have found the Sigma 10-20 soft, but then I have a pretty good benchmark lens in the Canon EF-S 60mm. Ok, not the same focal length but it makes me realise what a quality lens is capable of. I guess a wide zoom is always going to be a compromise, especially at Sigma's price point. I might be wrong, but I don't think Canon's offering is many leagues ahead of Sigma in the sharpness department - for super wide, super sharp shots, is a prime really the only way forward?

Always looks a very nice lens the canon 10-22. This new tokina 11-16 2.8 looks good to me nice and bright through the view finder for low light photography. I was generally not expecting much when I got my Nikkor 12-24 but was pleasantly surprised at how good it was when I compared it to my tamron 17-50 although all my lenses are comfortably beaten sharpness wise by my macro lens (which makes sense).