Torn between Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20

I am trying to add UWA to my collection of lenses. I am torn between Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20. I love all the samples from Tokina and the fact that Tokina is cheaper, but I kinda want the extra 2mm Sigma gives. Actually 2mm X 1.6 which is even more. I am curious for those that were deciding similarly to me between these 2 lenses what did they ultimately picked and why.

I picked the Tokina 12-24mm because I owned the first version and knew it was an outstanding lens. I'm a sucker for great color and there's nothing that quite beats the Tokina's color. I'm sure you wouldn't go wrong with either one but know the Tokina is a great lens.

I picked up the Sigma 10-20 f/4 from B&H. I absolutely love the lens to death. I am 100% satisfied with it, awesome color and image quality. I have a sharp copy, and wouldn't get rid of it for anything!

Check the lens sample archive, all kinds of motivating pictures to help make your decision!

Owners of both lenses will tell you to pick the one they have. That tells me that you'd probably be happy with whichever one you end up with

In that case I guess it all comes down to the 10mm Vs 12mm / 20mm Vs 24mm. Just keep in mind that there is quite a difference between 12 and 10mm.

+1 to also checking the lens archives. Good luck in your choice! Either way shooting with an UWA is awesome fun imo

I did check lens archive, the flickr archive, the reviews and both are excellent. Tokina I get much cheaper used. But then Sigma is wider. Decisions, Decisions.....

I had both. In terms of build, Sigma is smaller and feels a bit more compact. AF, Sigma is better with a HSM lens and can focus closer IIRC.

Optically, I suspect that the Tokina is a touch sharper, perhaps more with the new coating on the second generation tokina 12-24. Colors are more accurate too. Sigma is wider and does not vignette like the Tokina is you use a regular thickness CPL. It's colors are a bit warmer than Canon lenses and I didn't like that.

Both are pretty nice, but I preferred a slightly wider field of view from the Sigma. I'd go with what fits your needs.

And if it helps, you can get the Sigma from Abesofmaine for $431.10 if you apply the code AALOYAL in the shopping cart

rjx wrote in post #9923979
And if it helps, you can get the Sigma from Abesofmaine for $431.10 if you apply the code AALOYAL in the shopping cart

thanks RJX I've seen a little lower price at my local store but I would have to pay 10% California tax, this seems to be a better price if Abe does not charge tax

absolutic wrote in post #9923980
thanks RJX I've seen a little lower price at my local store but I would have to pay 10% California tax, this seems to be a better price if Abe does not charge tax

No tax + free s/h.

from the reviews i have read, the sigma is better, especially the new sigma 10-20 f/4. it almost rivals the canon. but if you need speed and don't care too much about range, the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is the best, or so i hear

They're all really good lenses, but to me there is just something really special about that Tokina 11-16.

I'm in a similar dilemma as you and I lean towards the Tokina.

They're probably both excellent lenses, but I like Tokina's photos (sample lens archive) better. Maybe it doesn't have that much to do with lens quality, but folks with Tokinas are just better photographers lol.

tudragan wrote in post #9924015
from the reviews i have read, the sigma is better, especially the new sigma 10-20 f/4. it almost rivals the canon. but if you need speed and don't care too much about range, the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is the best, or so i hear

yes, except that Tokina 2.8 is unfortunately outside my price range. I am going to Vegas in couple of weeks and I want to have UWA with me. Vegas is great with UWA. Couple years ago I rented a Canon 10-22 and took it on a Las Vegas trip with my wife, and I had so much fun, I practically shot every photo with it:

Content warning: script

I've rented a Canon 10-22 before, but ended up buying the Tokina 12-24. The Canon is a great lens, but I don't think it was worth 2x the price. I truly enjoy the Tokina and it was my most used lens at Las Vegas last year. I actually like the fact that its a little longer than most, 24mm is better when you are trying to work portraits in your shots. And for me 12mm is wide enough for 99% of my shots. I don't think I've ever had a situation yet where I could not get the shot I wanted.

Pro for the Tokina, build quality is awesome, its nice and solid.

absolutic wrote in post #9922079
I am torn between Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20.

Have you already decided which of the two Wigmas belongs in your short list? I will have the opportunity to use the "new" f/3.5 version tomorrow for a short time. The friend who bought it was also facing your same dilema (between the older Sigma & Tokina) but he took a chance on the f/3.5 version... .

I'm not an expert on UWA lenses, so please let me know if I should check for anything in particular...