Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm

[MPC 0]

Taking a photo course on the Cayman Aggressor in June.

Being new to the digital world, asking a lot of questions. I was told I basically need 2 lenses for the week. A 60mm(which I have) and a zoom wide angle, the instructor recomended th Nikon 12-24. Looking around at various sites I see it goes for around 900.00. But I also saw the Sigma 10-20 for around 500.00. Being that I also have to get the ikelite port and gear this adds up quick.

As I normally stick buying Nikon products. My question, is there much of a difference U/W? And does anybody have the Sigma? How does it match up to the Nikon?

Thanks for any info! Very excited to jump into this U/W digital world! B)

[kdietz 0]

The Tokina 12-24mm is commonly considered the best choice if you don't get the Nikkor....they are all very, very close

 

The Nikkor and Tokina are f4 lens and the Tamron and Sigma are f4-5.6

 

Karl

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Check out Ken Rockwell's review of the available choices. He points to the Nikkor as the best with the Tokina as a very good substitute.

 

I bought the Nikkor when it was the only one available on Nikon or Canon. Its still the only choice for Nikon with fixed aperture and AF-S for fast focusing. Appearently the Tokina does well without AF-S since the wide angle doesn't require much movement. He only tested this on the D200. I wonder how much different it is on the slower D70?

 

www.kenrockwell.com

[Viz'art 24]

I own the 10-20 Sigma and have used the 12-24 Nikkor before, I went for the Sigma mainly because I have a 14mm Nikkor and was looking for wider, the 12-24mm just was'nt enough to justify adding it to my roster. I find the review a bit on the fly, the Sigma isn't that shabilly built as he states an the Canadian warranty is 7 years, so much for is confidence statement. the 10-20 is not as sharp as my 14mm Nikkor (but then again you buy four sigma for the price of a Nikkor 14mm) but with the proper dome alignement found it has even sharpness across the image and more than adequate for the serious amateur and/or semi pro that I am now. I know I will purchase the 9mm or whatever they eventually come out with ( I have this thing about shooting u/w with fixed focal). Meanwhile I have to admit I'm quite a satisfied owner of a Sigma. Good money well spent !

 

 

Cheers

 

Enjoy your trip !

[slowhands 0]

...I basically need ...a zoom wide angle, the instructor recomended the Nikon 12-24. Looking around at various sites I see it goes for around 900.00. But I also saw the Sigma 10-20 for around 500.00. Being that I also have to get the ikelite port and gear this adds up quick.

As I normally stick buying Nikon products. My question, is there much of a difference U/W? And does anybody have the Sigma? How does it match up to the Nikon?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I use the Sigma on a D70, and find it an excellent lens for half the price of the Nikon ($450 vs $900). It is slightly wider at 10mm end, which is very significant at these angles of view. It is probably not as sharp as the Nikon, and it's aperture varies from f/4 to f/5.6 at the long end. The build quality is very good.

 

Now, there are some details to be aware of when using it in an Ikelite housing. It does fit a standard Ikelite zoom gear, using the thnnest rubber shims only (very tight, but they all are). The front of the lens is too fat to fit through the port, so you do have to mount it with the camera in the housing. It is a bit of a trick to remove the lens, once mounted, because you can barely reach the release button on the camera, but a pencil works fine for that (eraser end). As you can imagine, this means you have to remove the lens to remove the camera to change batteries, not very convenient, but I assume this is the same with all the fat lenses.

 

Someone mentioned the Tokina. Check with Ikelite to make sure you have the right port and zoom gear for it. It think it might be a special zoom gear, not sure, so I think it's a good idea to call them.

 

As luck would have it, Ken Rockwell was right about the Nikon lenses being a little safer bet, compatibility wise. Sigma has to do a free update to the firmware in the lens for a new function on the D200, the rear AF switch. It works in all other D200 functions, except that AF switch function, without the update. If you don't have a D200, this is not an issue. If you do, make sure the dealer sells you an updated lens to work with the D200. I will send mine in whenever I can spare it, but this lens is so much fun I really don't want to be without it.

[ikelite 0]

Send us the housing when you can do without for a week, and we will install a lens release control no charge to replace your pencil. Following URL describes procedure:

 

http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/udslrclamp.html

[Starbuck 0]

Hi -

 

Instead of a zoom I would consider the Sigma 15mm FE....great lens, inexpensive, you'll shoot WA and CFWA with this and not have to bother with the zoom stuff. You really have to try hard to take a bad picture with this lens.

 

M.

 

ps. Ike once told me that "zooming was supposed to be done with your fins..not your lens.." did I get that quote correct, Ike?

[meister 1]

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/ni...tout/index.html

[Kelpfish 15]

Put Ike in front of a 6 foot barracuda with 1-inch teeth and I bet he'd really appreciate a little zoom in his boom, if you know what I mean. The flexibility of a 12-24, in my opinion, makes it a far better tool than a fixed lens, especially the Nikon 12-24. It's pretty damn sharp and allows you to shoot varying scenarios underwater, while a fixed lens you are stuck with subjects that will only work for that lens.

 

By the way, here is a pic of that 6-foot barracuda. And I am not joking. People were afraid to dive with it. I was, I suppose, just stupid.

[rooster 0]

I just got the Sigma 10-20 and have dove with it once. This is a completely new rig for me, as I was a hold out to film, so I'm no expert on this. There was one thing I did notice, that has not been mentioned. When shooting through Ike's 6" dome the lens shade shows up (just barely) when zoomed all the way out to 10mm. You don't see it through the D-70 view finder since it is not a full frame view finder. Looks like a little trimming on the shade will take care of it. I do like this lens though it is a "little" more of a pain to instal in the Ike housing.

[Kelpfish 15]

Are you using an extension ring?

 

Joe

[clownphoto 0]

I borrowed a 12-24 to try out and ended up buying the Sigma 10-20 for all of the reasons Jean mentioned above. I've used it for two extensive trips now and have been totally happy with it.....cost difference was a huge factor for me because I'm really a "macro nut" at heart...just wanted to have a reasonably priced WA in my arsenal! I'm using it in an Aquatica housing, not an Ike, and can use it all the way down to 10mm without a problem with my dome port.

[rooster 0]

No extension rings with the Ike ports. You have to match the port to the lens. I used the port recommended by the Ike web site.

[Kelpfish 15]

I had a similar problem with my L&M 8 inch port when I threw on a 10.5. The solution offered was "grind down the light shades on the port" or buy a Subal FE. I choose to blow my wad on a Subal FE. It was an inherent design flaw intended to meet half way between a 12-24 and a 10.5. Subal handles both beautifully.

 

Have you discussed this with Mr. Ikelite?

 

 

 

Joe

[kdietz 0]

I had a similar problem with my L&M 8 inch port when I threw on a 10.5.  The solution offered was "grind down the light shades on the port" or buy a Subal FE.  I choose to blow my wad on a Subal FE.  It was an inherent design flaw intended to meet half way between a 12-24 and a 10.5.  Subal handles both beautifully.

 

Have you discussed this with Mr. Ikelite?

Joe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just get the new 8" dome or make sure that the shade is rotated correctly so it doesn't show up

 

Karl

[rooster 0]

The shade was positioned properly, any rotation made it worse. I probably will get the 8" dome, but when I ordered the housing and lens B&H had the 8" on back order. The one thing that I do not like about Ikes 8" is that is that it has no shade, at least not at the moment. Trimming the shade on this port is not a big deal as it is black plastic. I could just take the shade off but I like the protection it affords.

[ikelite 0]

I must retract my earlier post: "Send us the housing when you can do without for a week, and we will install a lens release control no charge to replace your pencil."

 

Seems EVERY D70 housing we have produced includes a lens release control. The only thing we can conclude is customer did not realize control must be in proper orientation to operate............

[kriptap 0]

Well from someone who shoots here all the time I would have to say DONT GET THE 60MM and buy the Sigma 28-70MM instead, you'll be happy you did, I shoot that lens a lot in Cayman, it will do all the 60MM can and so much more and what's better it even cheaper! (the doc put me onto this lens some time ago)

[kdietz 0]

Patrick....I've heard of that lens from others also.....will it shoot 1:1 ?

 

Do you use a dome or flat port?

 

Karl

[kriptap 0]

Yes it will as you can focus very close, it's very very sharp and the fastest lens i've ever used, even in low light it's instant, I would highly recommend it.

 

All these were shot with it:

http://www.digitaldiver.biz/cpg/thumbnails...ll&search=28-70

[kdietz 0]

Very impressive.....which port do you use?

 

Please give a link to the exact lens if you can...b&h etc.

 

Thanks,

 

Karl

[kriptap 0]

I use the 105 port no extention needed, the link is:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search

 

And the best part...... just $329!

 

Oh and it's a 2.8 throughout the range.

[Udo van Dongen 6]

Just looked up the 28-70 mm sigma lens: closest focus is 33 cm, but the it's not 1:1 just 1: 4.4,..... which isn't tht much of a macro i think..... For the rest, i do believe that's it's a great allround lens...

 

Udo

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

Interesting.

 

The closest focus with this lens is 13". That is why you get the 1:4 magnification. I don't see that as much of a problem as I don't often use the 60mm inside 13" anyway. I think this is measured from the lens mount not the front of the lens anyway, so its really close. About the same as the 105mm. At 60mm, for a given distance the magnification should be the same as the 60mm as long as you are at least 13". So for the fish portraits I like to shoot it should work just as well with the added benifit of wider angle.

 

I wondered if you get 13" minimum at all focal lengths and it looks like you do from their website:

"It has a minimum focusing distance of 33cm (13 in.) at all focal lengths and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:4.4, which is very convenient for close-up photography."

 

So I wonder about the sharpness. I know the 60mm is super sharp--perhaps one of the sharpest there is. People complain about the sharpness being too good for portraits with this lens. I wonder if the sharpness is acceptable with this one? It is a zoom, but its a 2.8 too.

 

Also, I wonder how much of the zoom range would work behind a flat port without vigenetting? You could always use it behind a dome, but then you might need a diopter and you would loose the flat port magnification ratio.

 

It loks like a very attractive alternative though. Try it and tell us how you like it.

[Ryan 57]

I have the lens, and will sell it to get the 17-70. I haven't dove with it, reproduction isn't good enough for what I do.

 

EDIT: I have the 24-70, not 28-70.

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_a...261&navigator=2