Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 conflicting reviews

I don't know about conflicting reviews. I've had my version of this lens for over 5 years. I believe Sigma's quality has improved vastly since I got it, I have 3 other Sigma lenses, 2 of them are through the roof in terms of IQ and build.

My 10-20 has been a workhorse lens, and has taken tens of thousands of photos in all conditions. It still looks pretty good in spite of it being the old matt finish, and it works extremely well. If I had a complaint, it's a bit of difficulty in low-light low-contrast AF.

I just finished shooting a hotel in Hawaii (again), and this was the only lens used indoors. I almost got a new one - and thought why would I do that? The distortion is low, the CA is low, it's sharp except on the edges (like all UWA's) and nothing else out there is a notable improvement really. Once again, it didn't let me down.

I did play with the 3.5 on a couple of occasions, and found it to be softer - but that could be the copy I was using. It was well over 4 years ago when it first came out. The 8-16 is interesting, but higher distortion. However, no powder room would be too small anymore! The Tokina is interesting to me for being fast as I shoot mostly interiors, however the range is extremely limited. The Sigma can almost act as a walkaround going up to 20.

Anyway, I highly recommend it, poo-poo the QA naysayers (I've had terrible luck with Tamron) and say go for it! If there was something that was hands down better even for 3x the price, I'd probably buy it. As it is, it looks like this will be the last UWA I get for a crop sensor.

If you haven't seen Bryan's comprehensive comparison of all UWA's for crop sensors:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5.6-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx