Sigma 10-20mm v's Nikon 17-55mm

Snapper73

Snapper73

Junior Member
Messages
1,496
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok I do a little bit of landscape photography and at the moment use my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. I'm thinking about getting the Sigma 10-20mm F4 for that extra wide angle but in doing so how much IQ will I lose from stepping down from the Sharper 17-55mm. :thinking:

Also if someone could suggest any other options that would be great. (y)
 
Just to point out, the Sigma 10-20 is not an f4.

For landscape, the 17-55 is really good. The ultra-wide may not be suitable, as a matter of fact.
 
Well you only would have a 3mm range to compare between the 10-20 and 17-55, and in the overlapping range I think the Sigma would be better, but I really don't think posing this as vs. question actually makes much sense.

I would prefer the 17-55 range over the 10-20 range personally.
 
You wont lose any as you simply cant take the same shots with the 17-55mm that you can with the 10-20mm and vice versa. I use a 10-20mm for my landscape stuff, its awesome - just wish it was wider!!!
 
Dunno about the 17-55 but I have the Siggy and it's a great sharp lens. You do get a bit of vignetting with the Cokin filter system on but that can be sorted very easily in PP. There is a little barrel distortion when wide open but to me that often adds to a lot of takes.(y)(y)(y)
 
On the Canon 40D which is also a cropped sensor body, I used both the Canon 10-22mm and 17-55mm and shot a lot of landscapes. For me, the 10-22mm was the better landscape lens. I loved the perspective it gave and angle of view was nice and wide. 17mm on a cropped body just isn't wide enough in my opinion.

I invite you to take a look at some of the landscapes I shot using the 10-22mm (mostly at 10mm) and I'd recommend you trying a copy of a 10-22mm for yourself. If landscapes are your thing, then I think you'd be missing out by not even trying a wider lens out.

You don't say how large your photos are ultimately viewed at so there's the possibility that you wouldn't notice any difference in sharpness.
 
Sold my Sigma, still have the 17-55, read into that what you want.

Whilst initially liking the 10-20, I fell out with it due to, what I considered, to be distorting the true iamge.I ain`t no great landscape tog, nor any other really, but I do use the 17-55 and my old 35mm F2 for landscape now.


:shrug:
 
Actually, what I liked about the 10-20 is the distortion it created. This has always been a favorite lens with the family :p. Especially when shooting kids' events and outings.
 
I have a Sigma 17-70 & a Sigma 10-20, I sometimes found the 17mm just too limiting so added the 10-20 which is a great lens when used in the right situation, it does need some extra thought regarding composition to avoid detail getting lost into the distance

I now wouldn't be without either though

Simon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top