[causey]

There is softness due to field curvature--which, of course, is more significant at the widest end. But it's very easy to keep in mind the hyperfocal distances for, say, f8, f11 and f16, for 10mm, 14mm, and 20mm, respectively. Proper usage of the hyperfocal distance removes any visible corner softness. The 10mm end, the Sigma's compactness (I genuinely dislike long lenses), the 3 years warranty, the price make this lens a very worthy competitor to the Pentax DA 12-24mm.
Both lenses are excellent, capable to produce amazing pics in skillful hands. Any kind of objective difference between them pales in comparison to the difference the photographer can make. And the Sigma is used by lots of professional photographers.

---

Last edited by causey; 02-17-2011 at 09:14 PM.

[Jewelltrail]

northcoastgreg: This depends on your shooting style. I choose the DA 12-24, in part, because I knew I would use the 20-24 range far more than the 10-12.

I love the 24mm range, but, unfortunately, the Da/Tokina 12-24 starts falling off dramatically at its long end. My Tamron 17-50 does a much better job in the 17-24mm range than does the Da/Tokina 12-24. I use my 10-20 Sigma for the 10-17 range, where it is awesomel.

Pentaxor:unless when you compare it with the image taken by the DA12-24. as much as I want to believe this, which I had before I made some more comparisons, there is still some visible corner sharpness, most especially at 10mm. at 12mm, the results that I had seen are much better, although softness can still be detected. if small full image is taken, such softness may or can be very difficult to notice. full crops or anything larger would show the softness much more obviously.

Pentaxor, have you ever shot a 10-20 Sigma??? I ask because, I shoot it often--one of my best lenses. I do not have corner softness, not even @ 10mm so long as I'm @ f8 or smaller & use the Hyper focal distance.

Pentaxor: the good thing about the sigma 10-20 however is that it is significantly cheaper (unless if you find a steal price for a used 12-24) and pretty good CA/PF control.

Pentaxor, the Tokina 12-24 is less money than the Sigma 10-20--all models, but I wish you were right, because it would have saved me some money. Remember. the 12-24, in any mount, except Pentax where it takes on a new name (Da), is under $400. Just because it has a Pentax name, and a HUGE sticker price increase, does not mean it becomes a more expensive lens; rather, it means Pentax has seriously jacked up the price of an inexpensive Ultra Wdie Angle. Click on this link, to see the price of the Tokina 12-24mm f 4 at B & H Photo:

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF Pro DX Lens ATX124AFPRON B&H

Even though the Sigma is a bit more money, it truly is worth it IMO.

[Jewelltrail]

Pentaxor:there is still some visible corner sharpness, most especially at 10mm. at 12mm, the results that I had seen are much better, although softness can still be detected. if small full image is taken, such softness may or can be very difficult to notice. full crops or anything larger would show the softness much more obviously.

Okay, this is my most recent entry in the Sigma 10-20 Club--nothing special, just a regular kind of shot. Converted Raw file:


1st shot--original pic--no crop
2nd Shot--the most extreme lower left corner
3rd Shot--the most extreme lower right corner

[Pentaxor]

I love the 24mm range, but, unfortunately, the Da/Tokina 12-24 starts falling off dramatically at its long end. My Tamron 17-50 does a much better job in the 17-24mm range than does the Da/Tokina 12-24. I use my 10-20 Sigma for the 10-17 range, where it is awesomel.



Pentaxor, have you ever shot a 10-20 Sigma??? I ask because, I shoot it often--one of my best lenses. I do not have corner softness, not even @ 10mm so long as I'm @ f8 or smaller & use the Hyper focal distance.

Pentaxor, the Tokina 12-24 is less money than the Sigma 10-20--all models, but I wish you were right, because it would have saved me some money. Remember. the 12-24, in any mount, except Pentax where it takes on a new name (Da), is under $400. Just because it has a Pentax name, and a HUGE sticker price increase, does not mean it becomes a more expensive lens; rather, it means Pentax has seriously jacked up the price of an inexpensive Ultra Wdie Angle. Click on this link, to see the price of the Tokina 12-24mm f 4 at B & H Photo:

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF Pro DX Lens ATX124AFPRON B&H

Even though the Sigma is a bit more money, it truly is worth it IMO.

Yes I had. the softness issue not from using hyperfocal distance is what I was referring to. I would assume the hyperfocal distance you were referring is the distance where everything is sharp?

well, we are at the Pentax forum, so I would say lenses that are only available for K-mount. otherwise, I would had vouched for the Tokina 11-16. so for the Pentax mount, th 12-24 is really expensive compared to the Sigma.

[Pentaxor]

Okay, this is my most recent entry in the Sigma 10-20 Club--nothing special, just a regular kind of shot. Converted Raw file:


1st shot--original pic--no crop
2nd Shot--the most extreme lower left corner
3rd Shot--the most extreme lower right corner

thanks Jewel. just as I mentioned. the full image doesn't show obvious softness. the crops however show a 1/3 of the cropped image (low parts, and especially corners) with noticeable difference.

[Jewelltrail]

thanks Jewel. just as I mentioned. the full image doesn't show obvious softness. the crops however show a 1/3 of the cropped image (low parts, and especially corners) with noticeable difference.

Hey Pentaxor, these are %100 crops, of the most extreme lower corners--no softness here, just the expected fall off from the Photozone numbers on the Sigma 10-20mm f 4-5.6. This is as bad as it gets for the 10-20mm--the extreme corners @ 10mm--it is not going to affect prints, unless you print @ 20 X 30. I am showing a pic form the 10-20, which is at the lens' greatest weak point. BTW, @ 12mm & f 8 on the Tokina, the fall off is near identical to what you see here--check the Photozone numners bro. The big difference, is the massive FOV allowed by the generous Sigma 10mm perspective--not possible with the Tokina--need I remind you of this?

[Pentaxor]

Hey Pentaxor, these are %100 crops, of the most extreme lower corners--no softness here, just the expected fall off from the Photozone numbers on the Sigma 10-20mm f 4-5.6. This is as bad as it gets for the 10-20mm--the extreme corners @ 10mm--it is not going to affect prints, unless you print @ 20 X 30. I am showing a pic form the 10-20, which is at the lens' greatest weak point. BTW, @ 12mm & f 8 on the Tokina, the fall off is near identical to what you see here--check the Photozone numners bro. The big difference, is the massive FOV allowed by the generous Sigma 10mm perspective--not possible with the Tokina--need I remind you of this?

well, the Pentax 12-24 MTF numbers are still higher though. besides, it wouldn't be helpful if only image samples from one lens is taken and the other one doesn't have.
and I'm not sure why you are referring to the Tokina.

[Jewelltrail]

Pentaxor: well, the Pentax 12-24 MTF numbers are still higher though.

The Tokina/Da has no numbers @ 10mm--that is a big point here. Even @ 12mm, f8, on the Tokina, vs 10mm, f8, on the Sigma, the numbers are statistically irrelevant.

Pentaxor: it wouldn't be helpful if only image samples from one lens is taken and the other one doesn't have.

Why don't you post a shot which is comparable, say 12mm, f8, with the Tokina/Da--%100 crops of the most extreme corners--then we can renew this talk.

Pentaxor: and I'm not sure why you are referring to the Tokina.

Because the Tokina lens is the Da lens, minus a few hundred dollars. The Canon & Nikon people can buy the 12-24 f4 for far less than the Pentax people can. Pentax people often speak about the Da 12-24 as if it is a unique, Pentax formula, justified in its high price. But the lens can be bought for under $400 in C & N mount. It is nice to bring things back to Earth, by being honest & explaining the 2 lenses are really no different, save their price difference.

[causey]

Unfortunately, DA 12-24mm is not even exactly the same as the Tokina 12-24mm. It is true that they have the same optical formula, but in addiction to costing $300 less than the Pentax version, the Tokina features a much, much better build--actually, a first rate build.

[rustynail925]

I use to have both the DA 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6.
Both are sharp. They handle distortions a bit different each has its own advantage.
I choose the DA due to brand, the feel and looks of the lens and exposure w/c is 1/3 or 1/2 brighter

[eddie1960]

missing from this is the Sigma 12-24 which would be my choice in this length (aside from the new model which is wr but way more money but it would be nice)
I would still look at it as I shoot film as well and the 12-24 on a FF image appeals to me. I know i will use a 21 on FF frequently (why i bought my DA14 when i went digital) , I would love to be able to shoot a rectilinear 12 on a FF camera, really wide effect without the full on fish eye distortions. it's really a none of a kind on FF

[pakhead]

The build quality on my DA12-24 is as good as any lens I own - very solid, lots of metal. The Tokina may better - but if it is it must be exceptional.

[causey]

How does it compare to the build of the 16-45? How much more metal is in it? (Because the only metal visible part of my 16-45mm is the mount.)

[ben_leg]

With my current lens, I take about 50-60% of my pictures somewhere in the range of 17-24…


Based on the information available at http://www.slrgear.com

It looks like the S 10-20 f4-5.6 is better than the tamron 17-50 f2.8 on the portion where they overlap.

Unfortunately there is mush less reviews for the Pentax products…. So I’m wondering if Pentax if the performance are similar.


The reason is that if I go with the S 10-20… I do get an extra 2mm… but over all I will use it for only 10-20% of my shots…. But if I go the 12-24, I will probably use it for 65-75% of my shots, but only if it does a great job in the 17-24 range.

[causey]

Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL ED [IF] - Review / Test Report - Analysis

With my current lens, I take about 50-60% of my pictures somewhere in the range of 17-24…


Based on the information available at http://www.slrgear.com

It looks like the S 10-20 f4-5.6 is better than the tamron 17-50 f2.8 on the portion where they overlap.

Unfortunately there is mush less reviews for the Pentax products…. So I’m wondering if Pentax if the performance are similar.


The reason is that if I go with the S 10-20… I do get an extra 2mm… but over all I will use it for only 10-20% of my shots…. But if I go the 12-24, I will probably use it for 65-75% of my shots, but only if it does a great job in the 17-24 range.