Availability of WA lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
    a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
    right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
    Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
    to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
    I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
    good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
    universally shared.

    Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
    B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
    that waiting list currently is?

    Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
    could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
    out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.

    All advice gratefully received.

    Indecisive Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Robert Coe

    J. Clarke Guest

    If you're blowing assignments because you don't have the right lens then go
    with one that you can get.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. When you decide to buy Sigma, you're better off getting the f/4-5.6
    version, which is better in terms of sharpness and CA.

    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31

    I've had the Sigma myself for about a year now, and am very pleased with
    the results. Here are some examples:

    http://www.arumes.com/temp/ninglinspo (shots 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10)
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_2840.jpg
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_2888.jpg
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_3639.jpg
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_4521+4525.jpg
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 21, 2009
    #3
  4. I compared one sample of a Sigma 10-20mm (same model?) and
    a sample of a Nikkor 12-24mm. Neither showed obvious optical
    misalignment problems. I didn't like either but for different reasons,
    and considered them "equal-but-different". Neither had really good
    corner sharpness at infinity, the Sigma showed more illumination
    fall-off, and one showed better corner resolution but more chromatic
    problems than the other (I don't remember which - but I would not
    have been happy with either for critical work). If you can wait, I'd
    go for the Tokina from B&H based on early reviews, since B&H
    so "cheerfully" accepts returns for replacement or refund if you
    don't like what you get. As always, test for alignment problems
    immediately upon receipt. These may be useful, although they were
    developed primarily for use with Nikon pro full-frame film bodies --
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/lens-testing.htm
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/checking_body_alignment.htm
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Nov 21, 2009
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    me Guest

    FWIW, since you don't mantion for what camera, 17th St Photo has the
    Tokina for Nikon in stock.
     
    me, Nov 21, 2009
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest


    If I knew the Tokina was the lens I wanted, I would buy the Sigma and
    use it until the Tokina because available, then buy the Tokina and
    sell the Sigma on eBay.

    But if you really were a professional you wouldn't need to ask for
    this advice, you would just do it. ;-)

    Also, is there no more suitable option within your camera brand? Nikon
    offers two truly excellent 12-24mm lenses, an f/2.8 FX and a cheaper,
    variable aperture DX. I don't know what Canon has available in this
    focal length range; I rarely needed anything wider than 16mm on my old
    Canon EOS 5D, so chose the 16-35mm f/2.8L.
     
    Bruce, Nov 21, 2009
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
    : >a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
    : >right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
    : >Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
    : >to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
    : >I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
    : >good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
    : >universally shared.
    : >
    : >Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
    : >B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
    : >that waiting list currently is?
    : >
    : >Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
    : >could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
    : >out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.
    : >
    : >All advice gratefully received.
    :
    : FWIW, since you don't mantion for what camera, 17th St Photo has the
    : Tokina for Nikon in stock.

    I guess that's an encouraging data point, but my cameras are Canons.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009
    #7
  8. According to slrgear.com, the Nikon and Sigma are fairly equal.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 21, 2009
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    me Guest

    photo4less.com have an "imported" version in stock and would appear to
    have a decent rating on resellerratings.com.
     
    me, Nov 21, 2009
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    : > Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
    : > a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
    : > right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
    : > Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
    : > to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
    : > I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
    : > good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
    : > universally shared.
    : >
    : > Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
    : > B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
    : > that waiting list currently is?
    : >
    : > Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
    : > could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
    : > out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.
    : >
    : > All advice gratefully received.
    :
    : Use a full frame camera and WA "35mm" lenses instead?

    Yeah, if I had a 5D, I'd click in my 28-105mm Canon lens and have at it. But I
    don't, so that's not an option.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    Guest Guest

    nikon has a 14-24 f/2.8 and 12-24 f/4 dx, and the 14-24 is *very* good,
    but somewhat wasted on a dx camera.
    10-22 f/3.5-4.5
     
    Guest, Nov 21, 2009
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest


    Review samples of Sigma lenses always seem to achieve stellar results
    - results that are usually unattainable to achieve with the samples
    you and I can buy in a camera store. Nikon and Canon lenses bought in
    stores, while still subject to some sample variation, tend to perform
    about as well as the review samples.

    Very, very few professional shooters use Sigma because, while the
    external finish might look good, the build quality of the optics,
    mechanics and electronics is extremely variable, and at best mediocre.
    Even the consumer-grade lenses in Nikon's and Canon's ranges are
    better made.

    The real value of a Sigma lens is what it sells for, used. Nikon,
    Canon and other camera brand lenses retain a much higher proportion of
    their original cost.

    Buying a used Nikon or Canon lens makes far more sense than buying a
    new Sigma lens.
     
    Bruce, Nov 21, 2009
    #12
  13. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : >Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
    : >a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
    : >right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
    : >Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
    : >to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
    : >I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
    : >good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
    : >universally shared.
    : >
    : >Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
    : >B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
    : >that waiting list currently is?
    : >
    : >Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
    : >could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
    : >out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.
    : >
    : >All advice gratefully received.
    :
    :
    : If I knew the Tokina was the lens I wanted, I would buy the Sigma and
    : use it until the Tokina because available, then buy the Tokina and
    : sell the Sigma on eBay.
    :
    : But if you really were a professional you wouldn't need to ask for
    : this advice, you would just do it. ;-)

    Sure, but as you surmise, I'm not really a professional; I'm a computer system
    manager for a city government. Although I never expected it to happen, I've
    started to emerge as the City's "go to" photographer for stock photos and
    event coverage. The City has some cameras I could use, but frankly mine are a
    lot better. In the recent incident, I was asked to do a photo of the City
    Hall. The correct solution is a full frontal shot, in mid-afternoon sunlight,
    from the roof of a building across the street. But I couldn't quite get it in
    with my 50D and its 18-50mm lens. The City Hall has a tall tower, so the shot
    must be a vertical, and the short dimension isn't quite enough at 18mm. So I
    had to settle for an angle shot from the front steps of a post office
    diagonally across the street. Our publicity agent was quite happy with it
    (it's a lot better than the City Hall picture currently being displayed on the
    City's Web site), but the foreground is messy and the perspective causes too
    much distortion. A slightly wider lens would solve the problem admirably.

    : Also, is there no more suitable option within your camera brand? Nikon
    : offers two truly excellent 12-24mm lenses, an f/2.8 FX and a cheaper,
    : variable aperture DX. I don't know what Canon has available in this
    : focal length range; I rarely needed anything wider than 16mm on my old
    : Canon EOS 5D, so chose the 16-35mm f/2.8L.

    Canon hasn't enjoyed a great reputation for its WA lenses. I'm sure they make
    lenses that would do the job, but I'd like to buy something I'll be happy with
    for the foreseeable future.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009
    #13
  14. No, they don't. According to the same site, the 24-70mm f/2.8, for
    example, is the worst in its class. All other brands are sharper.
    Generalising to brand level never makes sense. All brands produce good and
    bad products.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 21, 2009
    #14
  15. Robert Coe

    Guest Guest

    No, they don't. According to the same site, the 24-70mm f/2.8, for
    example, is the worst in its class. All other brands are sharper.[/QUOTE]

    i think his point is that sigma intentionally picks the best of the
    bunch to send to a reviewer, rather than luck of the draw.

    unfortunately, sigma lenses are not that reliable:
    <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
     
    Guest, Nov 21, 2009
    #15
  16. Robert Coe

    Paul Furman Guest

    $720 at J&R, that's supposed to be a great performer. The Tokina 11-16
    is $600 at B&H. 10mm looks like a 16mm FOV, 11mm becomes almost 18mm. If
    you are getting paid to use the lens, $120 shouldn't be a problem.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 21, 2009
    #16
  17. I'm not going to discuss speculations. Can you prove that Sigma
    does, and Canon and Nikon do not?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 21, 2009
    #17
  18. Robert Coe

    Guest Guest

    I'm not going to discuss speculations. Can you prove that Sigma
    does, and Canon and Nikon do not?[/QUOTE]

    i'm sure they all pick the best to send to reviewers. why wouldn't
    they??

    the issue is that sigma has a much wider variability than nikon/canon
    and fails a lot more.

    <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
     
    Guest, Nov 21, 2009
    #18
  19. Robert Spanjaard, Nov 21, 2009
    #19
  20. Robert Coe

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Nov 21, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.