Is the 14-24 mm the best wide angle?

[BackdoorArts]

I was flicking through a Photography magazine today, they had a 3rd party wide angle lens comparison as a feature. One lens that caught my eye was the Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM -DigitalRev
While it wasn't the highest scoring lens in the test ( the Tokina 11-16 was ) but it wasnt too far behind , it was interesting to note that it is an FX lens.

EDIT- I should add that this lens is another that suffers the same problem regarding filters.

I forgot about this one, but it would definitely be one of those lenses that would allow for the jump across formats. I considered it when I got the 16-35mm, because I tried it at the Photoplus Expo last year and it's a great little lens, but it's the filter issue that kept me from biting. That said, it's on my list next time I go lens shopping as I'm looking for something that will give me a field of view on my FX bodies that I get from my Rokinon 8mm Fisheye on the DX. I need to do some side-by-side comparisons because the chart on the Sigma site confuses the heck out of me.

 

[Ironwood]

Hey Whitelight, did you end up with a wide lens?

 

[WhiteLight]

Hey Whitelight, did you end up with a wide lens?

Not yet Brad.. I can't seem to decide on what to get..
I do want to get the 14-24, but that's like super duper expensive.. Plus I don't have a fx camera yet.. So it's like a chicken and egg scene.. Far from deciding which one.. Maybe I'll just get either the Tokina or the sigma and dedicate the 7000 to landscapes only, the 5100 for macros :-D
As you may have figured from the above, am totally confused

 

[WhiteLight]

But if it is a fight between the Tokina and the sigma, am leaning towards the older sigma 10-20..

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

 

[Ironwood]

I have come close to buying the Tokina 11-16 twice now. But lately I have been thinking about that Sigma 12-24 .
​Its still pretty wide on a DX, but if and when an FX body comes along, I wont have to start looking for a new wide lens.

I just have to think about weather I want to live with the variable aperture, and difficulty in using filters.

EDIT- I will just add that the Nikon 14-24 is out of the question for me, due to the price.

 

[WhiteLight]

I have come close to buying the Tokina 11-16 twice now. But lately I have been thing about that Sigma 12-24 .
​Its still pretty wide on a DX, but if and when an FX body comes along, I wont have to start looking for a new wide lens.

I just have to think about weather I want to live with the variable aperture, and difficulty in using filters.

Been reading quite a bit about these lenses and I don't think am closer to getting a definite winner.. That's a good thing cos all the lens in question the sigma 10-20, 12-24, Tokina 11-16 perform very well..
The world wide Web seems to be confused too

But here are my thoughts...
Between the sigma 12-24 and 10-20, the latter is a tad better IQ wise.. But the former has a slightly more convenient range..

The 10-20 has two models.. The older f/4-5.6 and the newer constant aperture f/3.5
Surprisingly the older sigma gives better performance..

Between the older sigma and the Tokina 11-16, not much to choose from in terms of image quality..
I personally like the dreamy kind of output from the sigma.

The Tokina has a smaller range.. Just 5mm which makes it almost like a prime...
The 1mm difference for the sigma can make quite a difference for dx imo.
Plus the 10-20 range is far more convenient.

That being said the Tokina is 2.8.
That's something that would be invaluable for indoor shots like concerts and definitely more helpful for astrophotography and night sky shots.
Also the build of the Tokina seems slightly better than the sigma..

So that should help a bit anyone trying to get one of these..

One question though.. Am guessing someone who has a fx camera and one these lenses like @Marcel could tell how the sigma performs on the fx body?
Anyone who has the Tokina and a fx body care to share their experience?

 

[stmv]

wow, lots of comments on this, well, I went thru the exact same process,, if you look at my blog.. you see me mull thru
the decision points..

The 16-35 is a wonderful lens,, but,, I noticed significant distortion on the wide end,, and well, that is exactly where I want
the lens,

I ended up,, selling stuff, saving money,, and,,, you guessed it,, I got the 14-24,, I guess, i am just getting tired of compromising
and would rather sell stuff, and wait,, then compromise anymore.

is the 14x24 heavy,, no, not really, and balances perfect, the sun screens protects the lens,, and I am already used to shooting
with my 15 mm 3.5 that has a curved front,, and after 10 years, never had an issue..

The lens produces the sharpness as expected, and as long as you hold the lens vertical (just like my 15mm),, you can keep the distortion
under control.

and, if you like,, tilt,, and you can have fun creating distortion,, but again, you are in control.

The price difference is about 700 dollars, and you loose filters! well easy filters.

​but,, choice is always yours.

 

[Marcel]

The Sigma I have is the 10-20 4-5.6 which is a DX lens. I never took pictures with it on FX. I did try it on to find out that it ALMOST covers the full frame between 17-20mm but with a lot of lost sharpness and vignette.

I do have both the 14-24 and 16-35 but if I was to sell one, it would be the 14-24. Although it is very sharp, I prefer the size range, and weight of the 16-35.

 

[WhiteLight]

The Sigma I have is the 10-20 4-5.6 which is a DX lens. I never took pictures with it on FX. I did try it on to find out that it ALMOST covers the full frame between 17-20mm but with a lot of lost sharpness and vignette.

I do have both the 14-24 and 16-35 but if I was to sell one, it would be the 14-24. Although it is very sharp, I prefer the size range, and weight of the 16-35.

Thanks Marcel..
I've seen some canon folks use this with a 1.4 tc..Not sure on the performance..
The Tokina works at 16mm on fx if I remember what @singlerosa had said

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

 

[Marcel]

Thanks Marcel..
I've seen some canon folks use this with a 1.4 tc..Not sure on the performance..
The Tokina works at 16mm on fx if I remember what @singlerosa had said

Well, maybe it can work, but can it produce sharp pictures? For me, using a DX lens on FX because some people say it can be done is not feasible. It's like using duck tape to two a trailer. It can work, but how far would it take me...

Lenses are designed to cover a certain sensor size. Using a lens that was made to cover a smaller sensor is just plain asking for trouble or a band-aid solution for someone that is desperate.

 

[pullmyfinger]

I have the 14-24mm, and love it!
But.......I do wish I could easily use filters with it. With that in mind, the 16-35mm IS the better choice. If you're not concerned about not being able to use filters, then the 14-24mm is a great lens.

Unfortunately....due to cost.....when considering a lens like the 14-24mm, it also becomes the point to decide on a leap to an FX camera.
I knew that I wanted wide angle shots, so I made the leap.

If you are going to be an infrequent user then I'm thinking that when you do want to use it you are going to want to get the most out of it. So, while the 14-24 may be the defacto IQ champion among ultra-wides, I opted for the 16-35mm f4 because I want to be able to put filters on it when I need to, from polarizers to graduated ND's, and you can't do that with the 14-24mm - at least not easily.
.

 

[Dimson]

get a used UWA for your DX body. Tokina 11-16 is great optically, if you don't mind the limited zoom range. also at f/2.8 it can double as a nightscape / stratrails / milkyway lens. But there are other good alternatives out there.

once you move to FX, sell it with minimal losses and get yourself whatever FX UWA lens you can afford.