Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
- Thread starter NickTB
- Start date
vectraturbo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 619
- Name
- Allan
- Edit My Images
- No
Tokina 12-24mm is a better lens
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,755
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
In fact, Tokina 12-24mm is a MUCH BETTER lens.
Also consider Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 if you don't need the long end.
- Messages
- 1,195
- Name
- Gordon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Tokina 12-24mm f4.0 is considered to be a sharper lens than the Sigma10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, but not the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5.
Because you want it for indoor portraits I would seriously consider the faster Sigma if you can afford it.
Of course if you use flash either will probably do just as well, especially if it is for family pictures.
Because you want it for indoor portraits I would seriously consider the faster Sigma if you can afford it.
Of course if you use flash either will probably do just as well, especially if it is for family pictures.
- Messages
- 7,969
- Name
- Sara
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have you played with something that wide for the stuff you mention? I don't know what other lens you have, but I would think that unless your family is the Waltons, you wouldn't need such a wide angle to fit them in.
Also as a holiday lens, I would personally think that a UWA would be too restrictive as your only lens.
What other lens do you have as a walkabout?
Just my 2p worth - Probably not really worth anything at all!
Also as a holiday lens, I would personally think that a UWA would be too restrictive as your only lens.
What other lens do you have as a walkabout?
Just my 2p worth - Probably not really worth anything at all!
- Messages
- 1,069
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
Always shoot at 10mm if you can, it tends to be sharper at this focal length I find. Also, discover a love for landscapes, a great lens to start off with.
I woundn't say it was a portrait lens though. If you shoot a female standing at the side, the distortion can make them look fat, and they don't like that.
Rgds
I woundn't say it was a portrait lens though. If you shoot a female standing at the side, the distortion can make them look fat, and they don't like that.
Rgds
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
I love my Sigma 10-20. Sometimes it produces rather soft results, but I put this down to my 450D's abysmal ability to focus properly except in live view. The following image was taken with my Sigma, from a very harsh crop. It was also one of the few images that had focussed properly in quick-AF:
That hasnt been sharpened either IIRC.
The lens feels quality (much heavier than the 18-55 for instance) and is extremely practical. For the things I use the camera for, 'stepping back' is simply not an option at times, and since I've always had the urge to 'step back' ever since i started using a PnS. This lens makes that true.
here is a photo taken at 35mm, standing at my bathroom door:
(Let's bear in mind that 35mm is the wide end of most PnS and bridge cameras)
and now for a shot at 10mm standing from exactly the same place:
One thing that I did notice with the Sigma, is it is a very WARM lens. This photo of our test subject, Jack, was on auto white balance:
AWB usually sorts 99% of my shots out with the 18-55, but the Sigma needs a good bit of tweaking at times and often delivers warm results. Vignetting is present as well as you can see at 10mm, is marginally better at 14mm and is almost gone by 17mm. By 20mm there isn't really any noticeable vignetting.
Lower than 16/17mm, the onboard flash of my 450D (and other EOS cameras I suspect) was not sufficient to fully light up the area that the Sigma covers - and at the widest ends you see a shadow from the lens. However - this can be used to an advantage. I quite often use my onboard flash, with Siggy, at 10mm, to only light up the area I wish to draw attention. Throwing the rest out of focus and out of importance, the eye is really drawn to the subject. See:
I'm not a professional - far from it - but the Sigma 10-20 has brought out a creative streak in me. It's own limitations are by right its advantages as well, and the possibilities are almost endless. Yes, I have been informed that the Toki 11-16 is sharper - I personally haven't tried. Unlike some folk on here who've probably had one go of the Sigma, already made their judgement and constantly bang on about how sub standard it is, I'm not going to bang on about the other lenses which I have not tried. But. I will say, I LOVE MY SIGMA!!!!
As a side note; the 10-20 does not have IS, but at those focal lengths, it doesn't really need it. Also, the f4-5.6 version is rather slow, but again, a tripod and a longer exposure can sort that. Don't try getting bokeh off this lens, for it just won't happen. The slight fuzzy effect of infinity-distance backgrounds is about as best you'll get.
That hasnt been sharpened either IIRC.
The lens feels quality (much heavier than the 18-55 for instance) and is extremely practical. For the things I use the camera for, 'stepping back' is simply not an option at times, and since I've always had the urge to 'step back' ever since i started using a PnS. This lens makes that true.
here is a photo taken at 35mm, standing at my bathroom door:
(Let's bear in mind that 35mm is the wide end of most PnS and bridge cameras)
and now for a shot at 10mm standing from exactly the same place:
One thing that I did notice with the Sigma, is it is a very WARM lens. This photo of our test subject, Jack, was on auto white balance:
AWB usually sorts 99% of my shots out with the 18-55, but the Sigma needs a good bit of tweaking at times and often delivers warm results. Vignetting is present as well as you can see at 10mm, is marginally better at 14mm and is almost gone by 17mm. By 20mm there isn't really any noticeable vignetting.
Lower than 16/17mm, the onboard flash of my 450D (and other EOS cameras I suspect) was not sufficient to fully light up the area that the Sigma covers - and at the widest ends you see a shadow from the lens. However - this can be used to an advantage. I quite often use my onboard flash, with Siggy, at 10mm, to only light up the area I wish to draw attention. Throwing the rest out of focus and out of importance, the eye is really drawn to the subject. See:
I'm not a professional - far from it - but the Sigma 10-20 has brought out a creative streak in me. It's own limitations are by right its advantages as well, and the possibilities are almost endless. Yes, I have been informed that the Toki 11-16 is sharper - I personally haven't tried. Unlike some folk on here who've probably had one go of the Sigma, already made their judgement and constantly bang on about how sub standard it is, I'm not going to bang on about the other lenses which I have not tried. But. I will say, I LOVE MY SIGMA!!!!
As a side note; the 10-20 does not have IS, but at those focal lengths, it doesn't really need it. Also, the f4-5.6 version is rather slow, but again, a tripod and a longer exposure can sort that. Don't try getting bokeh off this lens, for it just won't happen. The slight fuzzy effect of infinity-distance backgrounds is about as best you'll get.
They're not much better at 10mm, I'll tell you that
I guess it depends on your copy. In honesty, the only time you'll tell any of these wide angle lenses are much better than any of the others is if you're shooting straight PARALLEL lines for architectural work. In natural, lines don't flow parallel to the camera at every position, thus making the slight distortion unnoticable! If you need the wideness of the 10mm, go for the siggy. I love mine! Not great for portraits, but perfect for landscapes.
However lens lust dictates I will always want the Tokina due to the rave reviews it has been getting! But is it enough to mandate switching? Not enough for me!
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
Plus the fact at these focal lengths the extra millimetre, for me at least, can make the difference between photograph WIN and photograph FAIL.
- Messages
- 7,969
- Name
- Sara
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My first thought would be an EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS - but second hand these are going for around the £550 mark. How about a 17-50 Tamron? They get good reviews and are cheaper. 17mm is a pretty good focal length on a cropped body I think.
Alternatively, for that money I am sure you could get some good L glass, I am sure someone else could offer you some better ideas than I for that one.
Alternatively, for that money I am sure you could get some good L glass, I am sure someone else could offer you some better ideas than I for that one.
Another vote here for sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, i have a very sharp example of this. I remember before purchasing i read so many bad things about quality control and soft examples but i think this was more a problem with the first batches.
edit: Should of read the OP properly, not sure you want to be using 10-20 for portrait work although the last post regarding the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 also gets a vote from me as i use it as my walkabout lens and again i landed a very sharp version of it too.
edit: Should of read the OP properly, not sure you want to be using 10-20 for portrait work although the last post regarding the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 also gets a vote from me as i use it as my walkabout lens and again i landed a very sharp version of it too.
- Messages
- 1,267
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
I really like my sharp copy of the Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6. Virtually all the reviews I've read of the new f/3.5 version have said the the image quality isn't an improvement over the older version, and, in some cases, isn't as good, so quite where you get the idea that the Tokina 12-24 sits between the two versions, with the f/3.5 version sharpest, I don't know...
£550 used? haven't seen one that cheap for quite a while; not surprising considering how prices for new are on the up
