Sigma 10-20mm

[bertone61]

I don't like reading tests, though they can often help to get an overview. I prefer talking to the users and owners.
If you can tell me something about the good and bad spots of the Sigma 10-20mm I would appreciate that. And yes I know that it is not a high grade super professional lens and I do not ask for what you think about it if you do not have one. I would like to get information from shooters who own this lens or have had the chance to test it.

Many thanks in advance!
Regards
Steve

ps. sorry for any spelling mistakes or grammatical goofs, I am not a native speaker...

[marxz]

personal opinion......

A great value for money lens, and on the whole very happy with it.
I'll eventually upgrade (probably to a EF 17-40mm f/4L USM) but still keep the Sigma for the ultra wide if I stay on 1.6 FoV bodies. If I go to a full frame camera in the near future I'd sell it with the 20D body.

It's the one of the two lens I've recommended to every one I work with (most of my co-workers have canon 350D & 400D's), the second is the 70-300 IS for an affordable portable telephoto.

Gives great wide angle effects on 1.6 crop body.

Distortion is good to tolerable for anything other than architectural shots, can often mostly/sort of be fixed in Photoshop (though at the expense of some FoV).

vignetting is barely noticeable and gone after being stopped down 1 or 2 stops.

Colour rendering is good but unspectacular ( again can be tweaked in PS if needed).


Sharpness is OK, I've printed a few full frame shots out at 8x12 but cropping too hard and enlarging to that size can result in some softness.

Corner softness is OK to good.

It's a bit slow at f:4-5.6 but most faster wide angle lenses, even the big $$$ ones, don't perform very well at their faster, wide open, aperture anyway.

[bertone61]

Personal opinion? Of course! Exactly what I wanted.
I do rate your personal opinion much higher than Ken Rockwell's or any other pro lens testers written conclusions.

Many thanks for taking the time an dropping some lines about the Sigma 10-20mm. Appreciated!

What you say is similar to what I have been told from one guy living next to me, only difference that I have seen your pics and dunno how his look like....

Thanx again!

Regards
Steve

[ewhalen]

I had a Sigma 10-20 on my 20D. It was a great lens. I have some 15x10 inch prints made with that combination and they are great.

[dang]

I own this lens also, and have been very satisfied with it and agree with what Marx says. I've also found it's flair control to be excellent, especially considering it's price for an ultrawide. If I were buying again, I'd personally try to save the extra and go for the Canon instead though, so I wouldn't be concerned later on if I update my bodies. But so far, I haven't any complaints other than not being a fan of the rough finish used.
Clickable Example shot:


Hope this helps.

[ride_the_spiral]

I had one before I went for a 17-40mm and full frame. I found it to be an excellent lens for the price and although the Canon version is sharper and slightly faster, it is debatable whether the differences in price are warranted. The faster aspect is usually irrelevant if you are doing landscapes of course.

I would suggest firing off some test shots (if you are dealing with a retail store) and examining them to see if the copy of the lens is good. I have read quite a few stories of people buying bad copies (particularly in regards to corner sharpness).

Other than that Marxz covered all the bases pretty well.

Good luck

[bertone61]

Guys!

Thank you for your statements, which I really appreciate!!! Seems that the lens is okay. Yeah sure one can get a bad copy, but where I live noone lets you make extensive tests. However, a few testshots should be possible.

Thanks again, I'll definitely go for it.

Regards
Steve

[jdepould]

If you want to shop around a bit, take a look at the Tokina 12-24, it's in the same price range and has a fixed f/4 aperture throughout the zoom range.

[bertone61]

If you want to shop around a bit, take a look at the Tokina 12-24, it's in the same price range and has a fixed f/4 aperture throughout the zoom range.

Thank you! That may be a good idea. Gotta run and see the differences ...

Thanx again
Steve

[bertone61]

Could not wait and bought the Sigma 10-20 yesterday.

Due to heavy rain combined with strong winds I could not do a lot of pics. The few I made were made under very bad light conditions, very light sky, but dark between the trees I was walking around. Not good, but thats it....

As far as I can say now, the wide angle of 10mm is indeed big fun. Unbeliveable how close you can go to even big objects.

However, if you are used to the sharp images a 70-200VR produces the sharpness of the sigma is considerably lower. Well, I am talking about 10mm at f4,0 and I do not use any sharpening inside the cam, I only do RAW's. After doing some color corrections and a bit sharpening the pics look much better. Obviously the whole sharpness is a few stages softer than on non-wide angle lenses. Well, it was only a first try and I am sure when I can close to f22 it will perform much better. The size I use for pbase will look great anyway, as so small pics are always sharp.
The big angle is just amazing.... big angle is big fun. I was very amazed and I am sure I will do great shots with that lens....

I made some tests and must say the most important is to hold the cam exactly parrallel to what you shoot, otherwise you will see differnces in the sharpness in the outer corners. So I tested this and turned the camera 90 degree wise to see if soft spots turn too. But hey, it seems that all this works fine and I have a good copy. At low apertures (between 4 and 5,6) the images are blurred, especially when you look at them in full size. However, closing the aperture further improves the sharpness, but I feel it needs two f-stops to have the improvement of one f-stop from a 'normal' lens. Obviously this works a bit different on wide angle lenses...

CA's? Yes but only in the edges and because I had shot an almost completely dark tree in front of a very light, yes almost white sky. Along the thin limbs of this tree against the almost overexposed white sky I see some CA's but I think this quite normal and will not be an issue under normal light conditions. Color is a bit on the soft side and needs slight correction, but almost not worth mentioning.

Update will follow as soon as the weather will allow

Thanx again guys for all the hints. Appreciated!

CU
Steve

[ewhalen]

Could not wait and bought the Sigma 10-20 yesterday.

Due to heavy rain combined with strong winds I could not do a lot of pics. The few I made were made under very bad light conditions, very light sky, but dark between the trees I was walking around. Not good, but thats it....

As far as I can say now, the wide angle of 10mm is indeed big fun. Unbeliveable how close you can go to even big objects.

However, if you are used to the sharp images a 70-200VR produces the sharpness of the sigma is considerably lower. Well, I am talking about 10mm at f4,0 and I do not use any sharpening inside the cam, I only do RAW's. After doing some color corrections and a bit sharpening the pics look much better. Obviously the whole sharpness is a few stages softer than on non-wide angle lenses. Well, it was only a first try and I am sure when I can close to f22 it will perform much better. The size I use for pbase will look great anyway, as so small pics are always sharp.
The big angle is just amazing.... big angle is big fun. I was very amazed and I am sure I will do great shots with that lens....

I made some tests and must say the most important is to hold the cam exactly parrallel to what you shoot, otherwise you will see differnces in the sharpness in the outer corners. So I tested this and turned the camera 90 degree wise to see if soft spots turn too. But hey, it seems that all this works fine and I have a good copy. At low apertures (between 4 and 5,6) the images are blurred, especially when you look at them in full size. However, closing the aperture further improves the sharpness, but I feel it needs two f-stops to have the improvement of one f-stop from a 'normal' lens. Obviously this works a bit different on wide angle lenses...

CA's? Yes but only in the edges and because I had shot an almost completely dark tree in front of a very light, yes almost white sky. Along the thin limbs of this tree against the almost overexposed white sky I see some CA's but I think this quite normal and will not be an issue under normal light conditions. Color is a bit on the soft side and needs slight correction, but almost not worth mentioning.

Update will follow as soon as the weather will allow

Thanx again guys for all the hints. Appreciated!

CU
Steve

Shooting @ F22 will not give sharp shots either.

[jdepould]

f/8-11 (maybe 16) is probably your optimal sharpness range

[bertone61]

f/8-11 (maybe 16) is probably your optimal sharpness range

I see, what's the reason for that? Is it a common property of wide angle lenses? I mean should sharpness not increase with bigger aperture numbers?

Cheers
Steve

[dang]

Actually, it's true with most lenses of all focal lengths. Rather than go into it here, I'd suggest reading through this article on Luminous Landscape:
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials ... tion.shtml

I think you'll find there's some excellent information on a number of topics if you browse the site. Enjoy.

[pritchett]

This has been one of my favorite lenses! It's truly amazing and affordable too. I have since upgraded to all "L" lenses but I still use this one all the time. Congrats on a good buy. Here are some samples.

http://www.pbase.com/pritchett/image/72952943

http://www.pbase.com/pritchett/image/76293875

http://www.pbase.com/pritchett/image/77353571

http://www.pbase.com/pritchett/image/69930730

Enjoy shooting with this great lens.

Michael