Trade in my Sigma 15mm FE for a Tokina 10-17mm ?

I bought my Sigma 15mm FE at the beginning of this year, just before the “rage†or should I say reign of the Tokina 10-17mm FE began. I use the sigma on a canon 20D in ikelite, still using the small 5503 port.

Since everybody is so excited about it, I am wondering if I should trade in my Sigma. I can probably do that almost budget neutral or for a minor amount (since the list price of the sigma is higher then the Tokina). Since I got quite a good deal on the sigma, I might even be able to exchange it neutral.

The reasons why I should are easy, is of course coverage and flexibility….but I can think of several reasons why I shouldn’t:

• Wide angle is still a weak point, at which I need way more practice. Not going more extremely wide and not using a zoom but a prime keeps the amount of variables short.
  
• F2.8 is better for autofocus in Dutch murky conditions….
  
• I already have a whole set of magic filters for it (which I haven’t used much yet, sorry Alex), magic filters on a canon mount Tokina are finicky.
  
• New lens, will need practice anyway…
  
• With some care, I can use the sigma topside as well. Apparently, the tokina suffers from CA which limits above water use (although correctable in post)
  
• I have two DS-50 strobes, which can cover the cropped angle of view of the Sigma without diffusors (or more easily with them). On the Tokina 10mm, I would definitely need the diffusors (80 degrees coverage with diffuser, 70 without). Especially at strobe placement, practice is needed…..
  

Theoretically the last one is feasible, the horizontal angle is 137 degrees and the DS-50 with diffuser is 80 degrees allowing for some overlap. According to the ikelite specs, the coverage represents a one stop difference between centre and edge (so there is still some light beyond that).

Has anyone any experience with similar small angle strobes and the Tokina? I need to be either become very handy with strobe placement (not so well until now) or buy other strobes. If the last one is really needed, I probably wont do it.

What are your thoughts in this situation ?

edit (finally edited the annoying fonts away (was copied from MS Word)

a shot with the 15mm FE in the less murky conditions of the atlantic (Bretagne)

I hear ya. I want to dump my barely used Tokina 12-24 to buy a 10-17.

Anybody want to buy a like new 12-24?

David

Also the sigma will again come into play if you ever change your current camera for a full frame - the Tokina will not.

Personally I am a bit of a fan of a fixed lens - forces you into finding the best shot instead of being lazy and racking the 'zoom' until the "yea that will do" moment.

Having said that during 'action' such as a dirty great shark coming at you when you know things are going to get close then being able to open right up is nice - but often you will not have time to adjust the strobes anyhow.

Paul C

(Just adding more indecision - sorry about that!)

...and I put you in a car, that will eat up the road....

anyway: there apparantly is nobody that can diminish my confusion (only add to it :-)

I think I made up my mind anyway (at least for the time being). I'll carry on with my sigma. (i dont like to sell lenses anyway). Main reason is the strobe coverage, and I so (add a few lines of oooo's ) need to practice with this wide angle anyway....

Gerard

Gerard,

I'm experiencing a similar thing but with the Nikon 16mm.

I'm still using my 16mm but will get the Tokina 10-17 when I can. But I'm glad I've used the 16mm a bunch because when I get experienced with the Tokina I'll really be able to evaluate the differences and what is best for me and the conditions I shoot in most.

One ? though, do you know what type of searobin that is in your example pic? I'm very interested in those fish and there sure are a lot of varieties - all pretty uncommon and hard to ID w/o close pictures. Anyway just wondering - nice orange coloring and a pretty big one for a searobin?

Thanks, Carol

Thaks Carol, this helps me thinking I made the right decision, at least for another year....

I learn something every day: I didnt know they were called searobins across the atlantic. The Brittish call call them Gurnards. Anyway: Lythgoe and Lytgoe's fishes of the sea lists 10 species for the atlantic, (6 of which in the Eatern atlantic).

a couple of species are mostly deep water

I think it is the Red Gurnard (Aspitrigla cuculus) because of the steep head, the red (although with temperate fish you never know) and the ridges on the bony scales on dorsal site. Those last ones are not listid for any other species, so I'm quite sure. These are visible in this pic (at least in full size, you can click to get to flickr and then click "all sizes".:

Just after the example image, i tried some more, but my strobe batteries went dead....

The book lists sizes up to 30 cm. I am guessing this one was about 20-25cm. (one of the deep sea species (Trigla lucerna) reaches 65 cm).

Gerard

That's interesting Gerard, Thanks!

Yes, common names are misleading aren't they. Over on this side of the Atlantic we only refer to one fish as a "gurnard" and it is similar to the Pacific ones, that species here is (Dactylopterus volitans) or "flying gurnard".

But your "red gurnard" looks very similar to our true "searobins" particularly from the family (over here...) - Triglinae - particularly the Prionotus species are what we see here in Florida, Gulf of Mexico and up the East Coast US, at least within diving depths.

But they are similar to your "red gurnard", with the 3 free pectoral fin rays (that they use to somewhat "walk"), etc. I don't know much about fishes from that side of the Atlantic but it is interesting to see how they can seem similar, similar habitat but totally different species (sort of like Americans and Britians, French, Dutch, etc etc??? ha, ha.... )

Peterson's Atlantic Coast Fishes (North America) is a bit dated but has the best concise collection of "searobin" descriptions I've found over here. We have dozens of species and I've seen them in 6 inches of water at the surf line and in estuaries; all the way down to over 100 feet well offshore - and I've seen the young ones barely 1/2 inch long that still have the "wings".....

Thanks for the photograph and yes I'd just learn the lens you have - it focuses closer than my Nikon 16mm!!!! And then get (or borrow?) the Tokina and you can really form your own opinion. I would like to have the option of going wider than my 16mm though so it will be interesting when I get to use the Tokina.

Thanks and good luck!! Best, Carol

PS - Gerard I primarily use the 16mm for manatee and some other speciality shots of dolphin, etc. I've heard the Tokina is good for manatee but I haven't seen any really great manatee shots taken with the Tokina. I too am worried about the performance of the Tokina in low light and murk (something that can easily happen early in am with the manatee); as my 16mm even has trouble focusing in those conditions. But the Tokina may work great - I don't know. DavidG, a member here came to photo manatee last Feb/March and was using the Tokina for the first time (he also used the 16mm). He is an experienced and talented shooter and told me he was still undecided about the Tokina after using it a couple of times. FYI.....

I bought the Tokina just before my honeymoon in Bali. Worked nicely on the scenic drives to and from Tulamben and Puri Jati, but once I got to Nusa Lembongan, where the viz was decent enough to warrant its use underwater, it stopped working. The autofocus wouldn't work, and the aperture was stuck at f9. Tried it on both 20D bodies in multiple settings with no luck.

Of course, as soon as I got back to Boston and gave it one last try before sending it in for warranty service, it worked again. Arrgggh.

Anyhow, it was pretty annoying that this lens had problems within two weeks of owning it. I wonder if anyone else has had issues with it.

Dan