Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WhiteLight" data-source="post: 220456" data-attributes="member: 9556">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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> 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/3.5Surprisingly 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 [USER=3903]@Marcel[/USER] could tell how the sigma performs on the fx body? Anyone who has the Tokina and a fx body care to share their experience?</blockquote>

Verification