Printable View
Just curious if anyone has any experience with the SIGMA 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC HSM lens. I'm looking to get a wide angle lens for landscapes and I have my eye on this one at the moment. This one is in my price range. Your experiences/advice would be appreciated! Thanks.
Make sure you try and hire one for a while. I owned this lens for a year and it hardly got any use and I ended up selling it. Make sure you need this much wide angle. I dont think I was particularly pleased with any shots taken with it but maybe I didnt dedicate myself to taking advantage of it but. Again make sure you need it. I was rarely in situation where this lens could give me any advantage over say a 18 55mm for example, usually too much foreground.
On a positive though its a good quality lens but you can find a decent used canon 10 22 for the same price and I may be inclined to go with the canon or if you are using a 1.6 crop factor maybe go for a used 17 40mm.
I see a lot of these being sold on used lens sites so I cant be the only one who wasnt convinced.
I've got one and it is a "special situation" lens. It's too wide for any portraits, but I've been happy with it for landscapes and interiors. I picked mine up used for $300 and couldn't find the canon for less than $600(even used). It's great if you want something of interest in the foreground that is very close to you and still show a semidistant landscape in the background.(but, if the bg is very far away, it just disappears into a relatively flat horizon @ 10mm). All but 2 of the shots in this set from Vedauwoo in Wyoming were with the 10-20. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2093839...849262/detail/
I'm not in the "10mm is too wide" camp, seems to be limited to this forum in fact.
I use the Canon 10-22mm, shoot at it's widest nearly daily, and love the challenge and distortion (near fish-eye) it can provide.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/...f55b209d_o.jpg
I have had the Sigma 10-20 for about a year and have found it to be excellent. I use it exclusively on my Nikon D40 simply because the D40 is so light weight and it produces better colors than my D300. I paid 350.00 for it and it takes just as good as a photo as the more expensive Nikon 10-24. I am not a pixel peeper and don't examine the 100% crops of the upper corners to see if a maple leaf that was 50 yards away is sharp or not. Wide angle lens is not about "getting it all in" and shouldn't be used that way. Here is a good primer to read. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-...ide-lenses.htm
I have more fun with this lens than any other.
I use one quite regularly and love it. Here is one I took earlier in the year.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peregri...7614382945371/
I had one and really liked it, sold all my efs lenses though so I use the 17-40 now on FF which I like more
Thanks for all the input. I'm wondering if it is too wide for what I would use it for. However, I really like wide so it may be what I'd like. If only I had an unlimited budget! :D I'll see if I can rent one for a day or two and decide. Thanks!
Had one for several weeks and returned it, IQ just wasn't what I wanted, soft corners & barrel distortion primarily. Returned it and brought home a Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DII. Considerably less barrel distortion on the wide end, sharper in the corners when stopped down and I can use it on the 1D3 at 13mm with little to no vignetting.
Also have the 17-400mm f/4 and in the focal lengths that overlap the only "noticable difference to my eye is slightly less color saturation, sharpness is about the same throughout the frame. For my needs (Contractor/Architect firm portfolios) the Tamron performs very well in the sometimes needed UWA range.
I've had this lens for a couple of years now, and like it. Very wide angle lenses force you to "see" differently, but I personally like the perspectives you can get. It's especially useful for situations where you want to emphasize a close-up subject but include substantial background as well. The price is reasonable, and the lens seems well made.
Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fuhr
I have the Sigma 10-20. I think it is a matter of choice. While I love it when I use it, I just do not use it that much. Even in Alaska, the Sigma 17-70 was plenty wide enough for me.
Interesting -- Alaska is about as wide as it gets! I might like the 17-70 -- gives a bit more versatility. Hmmm. This isn't getting any easier! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by gary joslin
In my experience the 17~40 is not very good at 17mm. It performs much better the closer you get to 40mm. But 40mm on a 1.6x crop body is no longer wide at all.
Thanks Jeff. Appreciate the input.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Donald
