DSLRUsers.com

Any thoughts from members on these two lenses? Nikon $1330, Sigma $895 both from Birddog. Any advantages or disadvantages either way.

Am aware Sigma is heavier but full frame and Nikon is DX but lighter, also with better resale, but any other issues or thoughts?

Thanks in advance




ps Gary, should I put your vote down for the Nikkor? And Chris your vote for the Sigma?

Hi Glen

I have searched the web for sample pics of both lens and reviews. The Sigma has had very good reports.

The Nikon will take a filter at front but the Sigma, known as Popeye, will not. Some people have attached a front filter to the Sigma by utilising the sleeve that accepts the front lens cap.

For Sigma try:

[url] http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1224 ... g_asp_hsm/

and for Nikon try:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon

Chris

Edited

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1224_4556_ex_dg_asp_hsm/

Glen,

You know what my answer will be.

I have a very simple rule which I use.

If you can afford a nikon/nikkor over another brand, get the nikon. I have purchased a few sigma lenses in the past and been happy with the results, however the purchase/s has 'only' been due to a lack of funds.

Sigma is also slower throughout the range and upto 1 stop difference at the wider end.

Go the Nikon. This lens was the entire reason they started the DX line, it still serves as a benchmark IMHO for ultra wide angles.

Resale value might be poor on both - seeing as every member here knows where to get them cheap, where's your market?

The Sigma does have one advantage over the Nikon in that it is also a full frame 35mm lens so can be used on Nikon film cameras (if you have one).

The major advantage of digital over film is that you can vary iso from shot to shot if you want to and this has to be an advantage if the lens is slower.

I think everyone would agree that the kit lens is pretty damn good - 3.5-4.5 and also remember the acclaim placed on the 24-120mm VR in this case 3.5-5.6 or even the 80-400mm VR - 4.5-5.6.

Chris

Onyx wrote:Sigma is also slower throughout the range and upto 1 stop difference at the wider end.

There is something I don't get about this. Why is speed an issue for an ultra wide lens. I have the Sigma and I want a deep DoF for landscape type work. I would generaly use it on a tripod and even handheld the 1/focal length rule for shutter speed gives me plenty of leeway.

What have I missed?

Cheers
Dean

Deano wrote:What have I missed?

Low loight, indoors, woide angle shooting perhaps ? (Does ya loike moi Kath 'n Kim voice?)

Oi woiuld then use flash

There are some great pics on the web of both the Nikon and the Sigma being used with the SB800 - indoors

Chris

Deano wrote:There is something I don't get about this. Why is speed an issue for an ultra wide lens. I have the Sigma and I want a deep DoF for landscape type work. I would generaly use it on a tripod and even handheld the 1/focal length rule for shutter speed gives me plenty of leeway.

What have I missed?

Cheers
Dean

Several reason - Wank value: a hallmark feature of a "professional" lens is constant aperture. Consumer lens are usually endowed with variable apertures. If Canon can call the 17-40 f/4 a "Luxury" lens, denoting their professional line, darnit, this 12-24DX f/4 Nikkor is endowed with the gold ring status symbol too!

AF and viewfinder - The D70 is endowed with less than optimal AF system and viewfinder. 1 stop of light means half as bright. That's the light being presented to the person behind the viewfinder as well as for the AF sensor behind the glass.

Deano wrote:

Onyx wrote:Sigma is also slower throughout the range and upto 1 stop difference at the wider end.

There is something I don't get about this. Why is speed an issue for an ultra wide lens. I have the Sigma and I want a deep DoF for landscape type work. I would generaly use it on a tripod and even handheld the 1/focal length rule for shutter speed gives me plenty of leeway.

What have I missed?

Cheers

Dean

well i'm currently saving for the Nikkor becasue i'm going to use mine for sports hence the extra stop is worth the price sometimes riders don't like a couple of sb 800's going off in there face, hehe they'll learn

More discussion on the 12-24

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=11515110

... Obsolete ...

I spent last summer in Taiwan where I tested the Nikon and the Sigma 12-24s rather thoroughly I think. I found the Nikkor to have cooler images (no surprise), good color fidelity, some CA, and some distortion (not to be confused with typical wide angle lens perspective). I found the Sigma was warmer, flatter (more rectilinear), and showed no CA. Price and front filtering were not issues for me. I think either is a good choice but I lean to the Sigma for its rectilinearity and the close focus ability. A breakthrough lens at an attractive price. Even with the new Tokina now available, I believe the Sigma is still the pick of the litter.

Glen,
I have the Sigma 12-24 and am very happy with it. If I were in the market now I would probably go for the 10-20 Sigma although the full frame ability of the 12-24 swayed me in the first place.
Cheers,
Gerard

The question is where to get the Tokina from? I haven't seen it anywhere over here.

As Yoda would say if he were a camera nut, and not a Jedi Master, 'Must patience you have, if want of lens in Australia you lust.'

Consider the time to wait a bonus as more people worldwide get to test the lens and put it through it's paces. Learn from them, Padawan.