Sigma 10-20mm new or older model? at DVinfo.net

Victor Lee · January 24th, 2011, 10:56 PM

Hey guys, I'm in need of a decent WA lens for my t2i so I've narrowed it down to Sigma's 10-20mm. I'm aware that there are two models, the f/4-5.6 and the constant f/3.5 model. I mainly shoot video indoors so I'm leaning towards the f/3.5 but it's about $200 more than the f/4-5.6. So if I'm going to spend $600 on a wide angle lens, i might as well get the tokina 11-16 f/2.8? But then again I think the focal range on the Sigma seems more useful. Any thoughts or advice? Thanks!

Scott Brickert · January 25th, 2011, 06:13 PM

I had the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 for a couple months. I liked it, it took great shots and the zoom allowed framing with less walking. Then it was stolen.

Looking around for a replacement, I decided on the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, mainly because it was faster and recommended by Stu Maschwitz who has more experience and brainpower than I do.

Working with the Tokina for 10 months now, I can safely say I like it much better.

Yes, the zoom range is more limited, but otherwise it's a better build, the manual focus is easier to use, the autofocus is spot on (for some reason the Sigma always seemed to focus a distance in front of where I'd placed the red dot), it's better in low light for events and sunsets, and the lens hood is lined with a non-reflective velvetish coating that just points to the details that were considered in building the lens.

HTH

Victor Lee · January 29th, 2011, 02:33 PM

Thanks Scott. I just ordered the Sigma and my friend just ordered the Tokina so we can swap lens when needed. Framing with less walking seems like what I need the most.

Jad Meouchy · February 2nd, 2011, 03:38 AM

I have shot a ton with the Tokina 11-16/f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20/f3.5 (newer one) and here are my conclusions:

The Tokina is brutally sensitive to flares and reflections, has a strange hue, and is a little bit sharper.
The Sigma can handle flares with ease, has beautiful color, and equivalent or better detail than the Tokina despite seeming a little soft.

In my opinion, the Sigma is the better lens. The Tokina looks good on paper but in reality has a lot of issues.

Victor Lee · February 4th, 2011, 05:08 AM

Were you shooting video with those as well? Thats good to know that the Sigma can handle flares. I've actually been hearing the other way around that the sigma doesn't handle flares too well but I was willing to cope with it. Either way I'm glad I've picked the Sigma.

The lens arrived a few days ago but received the f/4-5.6 instead, vendors mistake. Is it a common mistake when buying lens online? Played around with it before returning it, liked it so far. The f/3.5 should arrive soon with a free uv filter for the trouble I cant wait!

January 24th, 2011, 10:56 PM	#1
Victor Lee New Boot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bay Area Posts: 13	Sigma 10-20mm new or older model? Hey guys, I'm in need of a decent WA lens for my t2i so I've narrowed it down to Sigma's 10-20mm. I'm aware that there are two models, the f/4-5.6 and the constant f/3.5 model. I mainly shoot video indoors so I'm leaning towards the f/3.5 but it's about $200 more than the f/4-5.6. So if I'm going to spend $600 on a wide angle lens, i might as well get the tokina 11-16 f/2.8? But then again I think the focal range on the Sigma seems more useful. Any thoughts or advice? Thanks!

January 25th, 2011, 06:13 PM	#2
Scott Brickert Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Crested Butte, CO Posts: 576	I had the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 for a couple months. I liked it, it took great shots and the zoom allowed framing with less walking. Then it was stolen. Looking around for a replacement, I decided on the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, mainly because it was faster and recommended by Stu Maschwitz who has more experience and brainpower than I do. Working with the Tokina for 10 months now, I can safely say I like it much better. Yes, the zoom range is more limited, but otherwise it's a better build, the manual focus is easier to use, the autofocus is spot on (for some reason the Sigma always seemed to focus a distance in front of where I'd placed the red dot), it's better in low light for events and sunsets, and the lens hood is lined with a non-reflective velvetish coating that just points to the details that were considered in building the lens. HTH __________________ Scott Shot-By-Scott

February 2nd, 2011, 03:38 AM	#4
Jad Meouchy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 663	I have shot a ton with the Tokina 11-16/f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20/f3.5 (newer one) and here are my conclusions: The Tokina is brutally sensitive to flares and reflections, has a strange hue, and is a little bit sharper. The Sigma can handle flares with ease, has beautiful color, and equivalent or better detail than the Tokina despite seeming a little soft. In my opinion, the Sigma is the better lens. The Tokina looks good on paper but in reality has a lot of issues. __________________ software engineer

January 29th, 2011, 02:33 PM	#3
Victor Lee New Boot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bay Area Posts: 13	Thanks Scott. I just ordered the Sigma and my friend just ordered the Tokina so we can swap lens when needed. Framing with less walking seems like what I need the most.

February 4th, 2011, 05:08 AM	#5
Victor Lee New Boot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bay Area Posts: 13	Were you shooting video with those as well? Thats good to know that the Sigma can handle flares. I've actually been hearing the other way around that the sigma doesn't handle flares too well but I was willing to cope with it. Either way I'm glad I've picked the Sigma. The lens arrived a few days ago but received the f/4-5.6 instead, vendors mistake. Is it a common mistake when buying lens online? Played around with it before returning it, liked it so far. The f/3.5 should arrive soon with a free uv filter for the trouble I cant wait!