I am wondering kung ano ang mas ok na lenses sa dalawa.. i know may pros and cons pero hindi ko lang alam. :Grin: may mga balak ako bilihin in the future.. ano po mas ok sa mga to..

sigma 12-24 (or 10-22) vs nikon 12-24

sigma 105 2.8 vs nikon 105 2.8

sigma 70-200 2.8 vs nikon 70-200 2.8

thanks po sa mga magrereply! :Grin:

jerry

Nikon = All of the above :Grin:

If price wasn't an Issue im sure no one would buy sigma. But that's just my observation. :)

I have a Sigma 10-22 and I like it a lot. Very sharp and contrasty (sharper than my 17-55dx at 17mm)

There are QA issue with this lens so make sure you test it thoroughly. I had to go through 3 samples to get mine but it is a keeper!

If you need to go wide, there is nothing wider than this on a Nikon DSLR. There is a big difference with 10mm and 12 mm.

Taken at 10mm f/8 (sorry for the messy kitchen) :)
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/91572609-L.jpg

Thanks Marton and Zandy!

Thanks Marton and Zandy!

If money is not a problem go with the nikkor lenses...with regards to the 12 to 24 category you could try using a TOKINA...its half the price as a nikkor but has the same quality...i bought one and very happy with it...:Grin:

how much and where did you buy it? anung lens po yun? search ko sa net yung specs.. thanks!

agree with jake...got my tokina 12-24 and it is hardly off my D70s.

@Jerry - ask Dindin or frank Tsai of Aperture for the lens.

how much and where did you buy it? anung lens po yun? search ko sa net yung specs.. thanks!

actually i got it for 21 or 24k i just can't seem to remember the price...I bought it from Avenue Photo...just look for Wilson...tell him I referred you to him...:)

I'll post some pics later regarding the 12 to 24 so that you could see the quality...

I also decided on the Tokina. I liked its build quality better than the sigma. the extra 2mm would be helpful though. But i really didn't like the fact that it is a f 5.6 lens at the 20mm end so i went with the tokina which has a constant f 4 throughout the zoom range. sharpness on contrast wise i think the tokina also has a slight advantage but the tokina does exhibit some color frindging at backlit scenes but is only visible if you enlarge to 200% or greater in my monitor with regards to this the sigma is king exhibiting very low amounts if any of this CA. The tokina I feel is very resistant to flaring in which the nikon 17-55 is very prone to doing (but only at large openings).

For sharpness the 17-55 can do almost as good as the primes :)

don't know where to post this query: is it normal for a brand-new sigma lens to have zoom creep?

Is it true that tokina is coming out new lens which is 10-20mm?

@ Jerry

Here's the sample pic I took with the Tokina 12 to 24 during my cousin's wedding:

http://static.flickr.com/78/228785657_3619cc6794.jpg

don't know where to post this query: is it normal for a brand-new sigma lens to have zoom creep?

I suggest you post this on the Sigma forum. You'll get more responses over there.

@Jake

Nice pic!

@Jake

Nice pic!

thanks...:)

Compared to Nikon the colors of the Sigma lens is a bit warm.

tokina is coming out with a 10-17 fisheye, 16-50/2.8, 50-135/2.8, 17-135

not yet heard of a 10-20 tokina, and they already have a 12-24 f/4

Is it true that tokina is coming out new lens which is 10-20mm?

Any feedback on the Nikon vs Sigma 105mm 2.8? I've got the same dilemma. Is it worth paying the extra for the Nikon?

i have 3 sigmas and 1 tokina.

i wont comment on quality of glass, but one thing for sure, the zoom and focus ring of tokina is faaaaar better than sigmas.

Tokina 12-24 is very good performer and build quality is even better than that of Nikon 12-24. The tokina though echibits some CA but can easily be solved by PS or DXO. In a comparative test done by Shutterbug, the tokina was the sharpest and Pentax is the best overall due to minimal distortion and absence of noticeable CA. The sigma is also good but tamron has slightly edged the sigma. Also another advantage I see with the tokina is the clutch mechanism for shifting from AF to MF. I normally use manual focusing on landscape shots on a tripod.

Here's another one taken using the Sigma 10-20mm

10mm @ f/8
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/92123779-L.jpg

mukhang ok nga tokina.. where can i buy this and how much ang bnew and second hand?

Zandy, how would you rate the perspective distortion on your 10-20mm? Final verdict? :) (Recommended, Highly Recommended or Look at something else)

Zandy, how would you rate the perspective distortion on your 10-20mm? Final verdict? :) (Recommended, Highly Recommended or Look at something else)


Earl, as with any ultra-wide lenses, there will always be distortion. The thing is to always keep the camera level with the horizon in order to minimize it. I don't have the Tokina or the Nikkor so I can't really gauge the distortion compared to the others. I got this because I want to go as wide as possible without resorting to the fisheye. I'm pretty happy with my Sigma so I highly recommend it . :) Make sure you get a good sample though(can't stress that enough).

Another one shot at 10mm @f/8
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/92401424-L.jpg

Thanks Zandy for the reply... I'm really looking into this lens too, same as you, without resulting to the Nikkor fisheye... It will be my very first sigma lens kasi if ever, that's why I asked. :)

Compared to Nikon the colors of the Sigma lens is a bit warm.

warm and contrasty... it packs a punch right out of the CF card actually :Grin:

user reviews of lenses here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews ;)

I am wondering kung ano ang mas ok na lenses sa dalawa.. i know may pros and cons pero hindi ko lang alam. :Grin: may mga balak ako bilihin in the future.. ano po mas ok sa mga to..

sigma 12-24 (or 10-22) vs nikon 12-24

sigma 105 2.8 vs nikon 105 2.8

sigma 70-200 2.8 vs nikon 70-200 2.8

thanks po sa mga magrereply! :Grin:

jerry
Hi Jerry.

I've only been able to extensively use a 70-200 2.8 from Sigma and Nikon. Sigma is warmer, softer at f/2.8 (sharpens at f/4 and up), my copy back focuses sometimes, paint coating easily chips off, and is 1/3-1/2 the price of a Nikon counterpart. Nikon has more contrast, accurate colors, generally sharp at all apertures, and the VR version is heavier, thinner, and longer. HSM and AF-S have almost the same speeds.

If money isn't a consideration, Nikon would be the better choice. :)

Daniel

dunno if it has been tackled before my post (sorry, too lazy to browse) but, the Sigma 12-24mm a full-frame lens (it may be the only one of it's range on all systems). Since the Nikkor 12-24 denotes DX, it shouldn't be full-frame so using it on a D3, you'd prolly have a wider field of view with the sigma.