Sigma 10-20

[4Lmike]

What's all the fuss about? I heard it was supposed to be sharp but I'm just not seeing it...it's no sharper than the 18-55 kit lens I used to have. Not really gelling with it to be honest.

[curtisl]

I'd swapped mine for a 70-200 F4L and so glad I did. They are obviously very different lenses but I was quite disappointed with the sharpness. I have heard that the IQ varies from lens to lens on the 10-20mm.

I got it for architecture but never got the chance to use it in that capacity but I still managed some shots I was happy with before it went. All in all it was a bit of an anticlimax for me.

[Bob_Defly]

I sold mine and got the Tokina 11-16mm instead, much much better IMHO.

[RobDickinson]

Seems some arnt that special. Mine was ok on the 350d but not great on the 7D.

[dxbtiger]

Which one did you get Mike?

This is on my shopping list for the end of the month..

[Crafty_]

I think the problem with them is the inconsistency, if you get a sharp copy its fine, just the luck of the draw.
One thing I noticed is that its not just one issue - there seem to be a few complaints (e.g. soft on the corners, down one side etc).
I'm looking for a UWA and ruled it out because of this and the naff build (I used a tamron at the same time and thought that was better built).
I think i will end up with the the canon 10-22.
Tokina 11-16 a bit too restrictive, put off of the 12-24 because they aren't great with flare and its not much cheaper than the canon.

[dxbtiger]

Is there an idiots test that can be performed in a shop to make sure you haven't got a dud?

[Speed addicted]

Mine seems fine, but I do generally keep it for landscapes so I might not notice any lack of sharpness.

[4Lmike]

I got the EX DC HSM Nikon fit. I think it would be fine for landscapes but for things like city scapes it doesn't quite give the detail I'd like.

Is the tokina sharper bob?

[Simpo Two]

Bear in mind the 10-20 is a relatively cheap indy lens; both Canon and Nikon have UWAs that are no doubt better - you just have to pay more...

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-10-24mm-...

Or this one for the FX crew: http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-...

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 16th October 12:18

[JDRoest]

I read something recently (no idea if it's true) about lenses and sharpness. Thought I'd share quickly.

Essentially they (the writer of the article) suggested that a body would have a certain spread of quality, lets say a +2 sharpness to -2 sharpness. And a lens would also have the same quality spread. In the unfortunate circumstance that you had a -2 body and a -2 lens, you won't have a happy time. However, have a +2 and a -2 and your a focusing genius.

The whole point about sending cameras and lenses off was to ensure that everything matched and gave a good result. Not sure how.

Anyway, no idea if the above is hocus pocus.

[Simpo Two]

Body/lens combos can be matched, but higher-end DSLRs often now have a fine tuning feature you set for each lens. Whether it is enough to compensate for a Friday afternoon Sigma is another matter!

(I tried a Sigma 20-40mm lens once and it was so far out it needed glasses!)

[JDRoest]

Crafty_ said:

I think i will end up with the the canon 10-22.
Tokina 11-16 a bit too restrictive, put off of the 12-24 because they aren't great with flare and its not much cheaper than the canon.

I wouldn't discount the Tokina without appreciating that it's an f2.8 lens on the full zoom range. The difference between 10 and 11mm is not much, maybe you have to stand a couple of feet further back (if that), and at 16mm you might have to stand a couple feet further forward. But I have to say that I rarely use 16mm on my Tokina.

However, what is very nice is a constant f2.8 throughout the zoom. As for build quality, the Tokina really is a nice lens to own and puts a lot of lenses to shame.

[RobDickinson]

If you want really wide theres the sigma 8-16mm, its a fantastic lens, best in class easily, but it is a pain to use filetrs with.

Also there is a 12-24 mkII which is a whole lot better than the old one.

Remember the sigma 10-20 is more like 10.9mm anyhow, so 11mm may be only a touch narrower.

I'm considering changing from 10-20 to 10-22 or 11-16 but then I think I will end up with a FF body soon so that changes everything.

[Gad-Westy]

RobDickinson said:

If you want really wide theres the sigma 8-16mm, its a fantastic lens, best in class easily, but it is a pain to use filetrs with.

Is it even possible? I'd ruled it out as I wanted to use filters and that didn't seem to be an option. Most reviews have it down as a superb lens.

I went for the Tokina 11-16 in the end. Utterly brilliant and highly recommended but obviously more costly than the Sigma 10-20. I paid £400 for a used one.

[jimmy156]

JDRoest said:

I read something recently (no idea if it's true) about lenses and sharpness. Thought I'd share quickly.

Essentially they (the writer of the article) suggested that a body would have a certain spread of quality, lets say a +2 sharpness to -2 sharpness. And a lens would also have the same quality spread. In the unfortunate circumstance that you had a -2 body and a -2 lens, you won't have a happy time. However, have a +2 and a -2 and your a focusing genius.

The whole point about sending cameras and lenses off was to ensure that everything matched and gave a good result. Not sure how.

Anyway, no idea if the above is hocus pocus.

This one? Makes sense to me!