Sigma 10-20mm

K

kartracer

Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
I'm considering the Sigma 10-20mm (Nikon fit) and it appears they offer an f3.5 version, and an F4-5.6 version. Obviously, there's a price difference... Can anyone comment on their experiences with either version, both outdoor, and indoor.
 
I have the variable aperture version (f/4-5.6) and it performs very well. I can't verify it BUT I have heard various claims that the f/3.5 is inferior, and you really don't gain that much...
 
I've had some cracking results from my f/4 - 5.6. I've also heard that the f/3.5 isn't as good although I've not seen any examples.
 
Thanks. I've seen the slower lens for as little as 350.00 (very tempted at that price), whilst the F3.5 is nearer 500.00. I'm using a D90, so I guess its ISO performance would help out with the slower version, in most cases.
 
The slower aperture is not often an issue, generally this lens is used for static subjects and you will want to stop down to f8 or f11 to get the depth of field and best image quality. The pics I posted were at 1/125th or 250th at f8 or 11 on ISO 100 so not really a problem.

If you do need the extra shutter speed as you say you can up the ISO without serious image degradation. I would prefer to use a tripod and keep the IQ at its best.....
 
kartracer said:
Thanks. I've seen the slower lens for as little as 350.00 (very tempted at that price), whilst the F3.5 is nearer 500.00. I'm using a D90, so I guess its ISO performance would help out with the slower version, in most cases.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's not exactly as if you'll get paper thin DOF at f/3.5 either and at those focal lengths you don't notice much difference. Background blur is not easy to achieve on UWA lenses.
 
Id go for the variable aperture, I guess you will be using it for landscapes/architecure? If so your be stopping it down, mine seems best at F11 or so (best sharpness front to back). I picked mine up off the forums on here for £275 as new and in oridgnal packaging. Its a good choice as even though its a third party lens it seems to hold its value really well and have seen some goign on ebay for £330 used.
 
Unless your buying it in the main-intention to create comedy low light wide angle portraits of your mates, I'd suggest getting the var.aperture one. :thumbs:
 
Dave Pickett said:
Digital photo tested a few super wides this month and rated the sigma f3.5 above the nikon and canon for iq:shrug
Click to expand...

That's a first. I've never seen any magazine, website or person rate the f/3.5 version higher than the f/4-5.6 version - or did they not include the 4-5.6 in that comparison?

The f/4-5.6 has come out on top in MANY reviews though (above and beyond Nikon and Canon's own offerings, as well as Sigma's f/3.5).

I got the f/4-5.6 last September and use it fairly regularly on a D200 and D300s. Cracking lens, especially when you consider the cost.
 
That said, it still recommended to f4 - 5.6 as the gold award best buy, due to its cheaper price and the fact that a wide aperture isnt that necesary for most using a wa lens......
 
Dave Pickett said:
That said, it still recommended to f4 - 5.6 as the gold award best buy, due to its cheaper price and the fact that a wide aperture isnt that necesary for most using a wa lens......
Click to expand...

Exactly, I mean you can handhold the thing at 1/10 - 1/20 shutter speed for christ sake. This is why I don't get it when people drool and pee themselves over the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. But hey, what do I know........
 
Definitely need it for landscapes, but I'm a big social doc. shooter too. If I had the money, I'd go for the 12-24mm, because I'd be near the longer end most of the time, and get more use out of the lens. The Tokina is too far down the wide scale for me. I know it sounds like I want my cake and eat it, but...
 
kartracer said:
Thanks - this is not an easy decision!
Click to expand...

It was for me. I spent countless hours reading reviews, and looking at images myself shot with all the various options on different bodies, then I went down to a couple of Wilkinson's Camera & Jessops shops to have a play with the different lenses myself.

At the end of it all, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 showed less distortion than any other, easily as sharp as the Nikon, and little-to-none CA.
 
Kaouthia said:
At the end of it all, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 showed less distortion than any other, easily as sharp as the Nikon, and little-to-none CA.
Click to expand...

I reckon Amp34's 'Sigma has tonzzz of distortion' emergency alarm is sounding right now, and he'll be here in a minute to tell you you're wrong ;)


That was said in jest by the way.
 
Speak of the devil! :lol:

I'd agree with most of the replies here, I haven't heard good things about the f/3.5, that said if I were to go with either of the Sigmas it would probably be the f/3.5, but then I shoot stuff that needs a wide aperture (and why my ideal lens would still be the 11-16).

As for the distortion, obviously it does, it's a super wide angle lens. :p However the issue I have with the Sigmas distortion is the wibbly wobblyness of it, which makes it harder to correct in PP (if you want to correct it). The issue I have with the Sigma in general though is that I don't think it is as good a lens all round (possibly partly because it is similar to my 24-70 and I know what problems that has with regards to focus and the crinkle cut finish).

To end it off, why not look at the 8-16 :lol:
 
Amp34 said:
which makes it harder to correct in PP (if you want to correct it).
Click to expand...

Of course you're always going to get a degree of perspective distortion, but I was talking more about barrel & pincushion distortion, which (in my experience) really isn't a problem on the Sigma f/4-5.6 (certainly not when compared with the alternatives).

Personally I never correct it (never felt a need to), but I wonder if that's a non-issue for those with CS5 given its new lens & body databases in the distortion correction bit.

Believe me, I'm not a big fan of Sigma overall, but this one really impressed me. It's the only non-Nikon lens I'd really consider owning (and the only non-Nikon one I do own).
 
Perspective distortion will happen on any UWA lens that isn't equipped with tilt shift.

Barrel distortion and pincushion are also in my experience, practically invisible on the Sigma. The following images have not had ANY distortion correction, and have just had a slight crop - show me where the distortion is?

IMG_8677_sb.jpg


IMG_8308_sb.jpg


Call me a blind man but I see no distortion, except for a tiny tiny pinch of pincushion in the last one.

In fact; looking again I'm not even convinced that is the lens doing that. Either way my point still stands, there is little noticeable distortion with the lens... end of.
 
Kaouthia said:
Of course you're always going to get a degree of perspective distortion, but I was talking more about barrel & pincushion distortion, which (in my experience) really isn't a problem on the Sigma f/4-5.6 (certainly not when compared with the alternatives).

Personally I never correct it (never felt a need to), but I wonder if that's a non-issue for those with CS5 given its new lens & body databases in the distortion correction bit.

Believe me, I'm not a big fan of Sigma overall, but this one really impressed me. It's the only non-Nikon lens I'd really consider owning (and the only non-Nikon one I do own).
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about perspective distortion, sorry, I was talking about the "straightness" of the distortion (if that makes any sense). Most lenses show a curve towards either end, the 10-20 doesn't curve smoothly it bumps up and down as it does (can't really explain it well). Either way it only really shows in a few photos, generally where you want to correct the lens (for example seascapes where there is a definite straight line in the image). :)

Anyway we've had this discussion before so I'm too lazy to have it again.:lol: Personally however, having used both lenses (and the Canon 10-22) I think the Tokina is a lot better lens. As the old saying goes, don't knock it til you tried it.:D
 
Indeed we have Amp. I still say you just got a bad sample. ;)
 
My plan is to try out the 10-20mm, somehow, and hopefully the 12-24. For non-landscape shots, the 12-24 AF sounds like it might be smoother/faster/quieter. And one might come up at a price to tempt me. If not, I'll probably go for the Sigma.
 
Didn't realise there were 2 versions of this lens. I'd go for the variable aperture as I'd use it for massive dof so would be stopping down anyway.

Although 24mm at the long end would mean I could leave it on for other stuff....
 
kartracer said:
My plan is to try out the 10-20mm, somehow, and hopefully the 12-24. For non-landscape shots, the 12-24 AF sounds like it might be smoother/faster/quieter. And one might come up at a price to tempt me. If not, I'll probably go for the Sigma.
Click to expand...

Where abouts are you?
 
kartracer said:
Thanks. I've seen the slower lens for as little as 350.00 (very tempted at that price), whilst the F3.5 is nearer 500.00. I'm using a D90, so I guess its ISO performance would help out with the slower version, in most cases.
Click to expand...

I managed to get one new for £279 from Jessops it was reduced to £299 and then it was the last on on display so got them to knock another £20 off!!
 
D-man said:
Didn't realise there were 2 versions of this lens. I'd go for the variable aperture as I'd use it for massive dof so would be stopping down anyway.

Although 24mm at the long end would mean I could leave it on for other stuff....
Click to expand...

You don't really need to worry about DoF with lenses this wide. Anything above f/4 will give you a DoF of around 2-3ft to infinity. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top