I have had a look and plenty of topics on these lenses individually, but none comparing the two together (or none that i could find).

so far i have a:

nikon 105mm macro
nikon kit lens 18-70mm
sigma 18-50mm f2.8 which i now use

i am now looking at a wide angle, but which one?

the sigma 10-20mm or the nikon 10.5mm

i know they are different fish, but just how do they compare for build quality speed and more importantly picture quality?

apart from the £200 or so saving for the sigma what are the pro's and con's?

thanks

clive

Hi Clive

We had a similar discussion to this a few weeks ago so you might like to do a search - if you havn't already.

I havn't used the Sigma but do have the Nikkors 12-24 and 10.5. The 12-24 is highly versatile, sharp and easy to use. I have been really pleased with the results.

I bought a 10.5 after seeing some of Alex's amazing pics with this lens. It does indeed produce awesome results - well, Alex does! But it is not so easy to use as the 12-24 and composition has to be handled with much greater care.

I suspect that the advice you will get will be similar to last time around: buy both - and sell a kidney

just had another search and as per last time i cant find the thread comparing them.

forgot to say that i would ideally like to use the wide angle top side as well, so that might count out the 10.5.

so that might make it a decission to either the nikon 12-24 or the sigma 10-20.

would be nice if someone could do some tripod tests of the same shots to do a comparison on picture quality.

Hmm, I do find the 10.5 VERY hard to use successfully as a top-side lens. I've heard that the curved distortion can be cleaned-up with Nikon Capture but I have not tried it. The 12-24 is ace for a top-side lens and is my main tool.

Sorry, I can't help you with the Nikon/Sigma comparison - but doubtless someone on Wetpixel will help.

Good luck with your choice! Tough one......

You might get an answer here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1030

For me the Nikon 10.5mm is a must have. It does take a while to get used to shooting a lens a wide as this, but once you have you cannot shoot anything else!

It's also worth checking the bit about distortion on Peter's Website as it is a way to get two lenses out of one with the 10.5mm! Not something i do myself, but Peter has some compelling examples.

Alex

Hey Clive

Have a look too at http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...285&#entry60285

I have both lenses, the 10.5mm I actually have one of the first to arrive in north america, LOVE IT, but do forget about defishing that lens in anything but blue water edges, if you have anything in the corner it will get streched butt ugly. the Sigma I just got a month ago and so far I like the lens, not as sharp as the 10.5mm but considering the price, very nice lens, there is a big improvement at f/8 in sharpness, and focusing is fast, construction is typical Sigma, built like a toy while the Nikon are built like a tool.

I'm trying to schedule some pool time at the facility we use for testing and plan on doing tile work with both lenses, so look for a side by side review in the forthcoming month, they are different purpose lenses and i'm actually glad to have both.

Off the cuff, I give serious good points to the Sigma for topside versatility, it's a nice sweeping view.

You will end up wanting both the 12-24mm DX Nikon lens and the 10.5 Fisheye.

Which one you buy first will depend on how much topside photography you do. If you do a lot of topside, then I recommend you buy the 12-24mm lens first. It is hugely versatile and will be really a fantastic lens both topside and underwater. Then buy the 10.5 fisheye second and you will find you use the 10.5 underwater almost all the time and the 12-24mm topside almost all the time.

If you are just looking for an underwater lens, buy the 10.5mm fisheye and then the 12-24mm later on.

Hope this helps somewhat,
M

M's advice sounds really good to me.