Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

comparing the sigma 10-20 and 12-24


Dugi34 14 917 United Kingdom
17 Dec 2007 8:03PM
I am going to be getting a wide angle lens to compliment my 18-50 2.8 sigma. I could use some advice as to the pros and cons between the two wide angles from sigma.
I have narrowed it down to these using the forum , but I can't decide which one is the better. Is it a case of more money means more lens as is seemingly usual, or not.
Is anyone out there using either and had first hand experience with both lenses.
Doug
IanA 18 3.0k 12 England
17 Dec 2007 8:18PM
Image quality is similar, both being very good. the main reason for the price difference is the 12-24mm will cover a full frame sensor whereas the 10-20mm is a DC lens and will only cover a cropped sensor.

HIH

Ian Smile
chris.maddock 20 3.7k United Kingdom
17 Dec 2007 8:21PM
The 10-20 doesn't work on full-frame cameras, whereas the 12-24 does.
The 10-20 takes front-mounted filters whereas the 12-24 doesn't.
I have a 12-24 with which I'm very happy, whilst many ePzers seem to have the 10-20 and are (as far as I've seen) very happy with that.
If you are never likely to want to switch to a full-frame digital, nor use your choice on a film camera, then I'd recommend the 10-20.
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
18 Dec 2007 12:33AM
The front element of the 12-24mm is very bulbous and needs some protection when not in use.

Which is why it can't take front mounted filters.

Rear mounted filters was the norm on super-wide lenses at one time.

jas
Dugi34 14 917 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 10:54PM
thanks for the info . I will go for the 10-20 as I will never be able to justify switching to full frame . I think the chances of me using a film camera are equally slim.
Doug
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
18 Dec 2007 11:38PM

Quote:......as I will never be able to justify switching to full frame.


I am beginning to wonder if it is really necessary for most of us. A desirable piece of kit on the face of it, but the crop cameras do well enough when comes down brass tacks.

The 10-20mm is specifically designed for crop cameras good results have been reported many times here.

It is also more attractive price-wise, as has been said.

For myself, it is the choice, and perhaps a 400D (or 350D) - I like the small dimensions of them.

Being used to small body cameras such as Praktina II, Pentax MG and Contax 139Q I don't think that I will have a problem, despite having long hands.

So, all being well, this is the way forward for me in 2008, as, and when, funds permit.

jas
Carabosse 18 41.7k 270 England
18 Dec 2007 11:40PM

Quote:never be able to justify switching to full frame


Almost a eyeblink ago a Canon 5D was around 2500. And plenty rushed out and bought one. Now it is down to barely half that. There is only one way for camera body prices to go...... down!

Never say "Never"! Wink
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 11:42PM
The 5D has already fallen by more than the 10-20 cost since I bought it. 3 years time a full frame camera for the price of a 40D????
Carabosse 18 41.7k 270 England
18 Dec 2007 11:43PM

Quote:3 years time a full frame camera for the price of a 40D????


3 years.......... at the most, I would say.

The 3-megapixel Canon D30 DSLR was about 2500 when it came out a few years back. If Canon made such a model now I wonder what the price would be - a couple of hundred quid?
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 11:44PM
I look forward to it Smile
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
18 Dec 2007 11:51PM

Quote:3 years.......... at the most, I would say


If I am still around in 3 years time! I am concerned with what I am going to be able to do next year!

The combination I specify above will fulfil my foreseeable requirements.

It will release me from my present commitment from film.

A step forward.

jas
Carabosse 18 41.7k 270 England
18 Dec 2007 11:55PM

Quote:If I am still around in 3 years time!


Check out the Life Expectancy Tables , Jas. You may be around longer than you think! Wink
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
19 Dec 2007 12:10AM
Well, I passed my foot MoT with flying colours, this morning, blood flow and sensitivity, so who knows.

If I am, I will consider FF if it is 300!

I said I would get the 300D when it fell below 500 and I did!

jas
Thunderace 16 25 United Kingdom
19 Dec 2007 12:31PM
It's not strictly true that you can't front mount a filter on the Sigma 12-24mm, although the solution isn't ideal. It comes with a built in petal type lens hood, a short tube is supplied that friction fits over this to attach the lens cap to. This tube has an 82mm filter thread. On a 1.6 crop DSLR vignetting starts at about 14mm with a standard Hoya filter attached (haven't tried it with a skinny Pro-1 type).

I think it's a very good lens and isn't shamed by the 17-40 and 24--70 Ls that keep it company. I chose it over the alternatives as it also fits my EOS3 film camera or a full-frame DSLR if I eventually get one. It's also built like a tank. Mmmm, 12mm on full frame.
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
19 Dec 2007 12:55PM

Quote:I think it's a very good lens and isn't shamed by the 17-40 and 24--70 Ls that keep it company. I chose it over the alternatives as it also fits my EOS3 film camera or a full-frame DSLR if I eventually get one. It's also built like a tank. Mmmm, 12mm on full frame.


It is also more expensive.

On my 300D it not much wider than my 20-35mm on film SLR, so no real gain in using the 300D over film.

So for my purpose the 10-20mm is a better proposition on the 300D.

jas

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.