How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
absquatulate Forum Pro • Posts: 11,128
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

fishy wishy wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Antone wrote:

dan_darkroom wrote:

I just see cheap Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC HSM on the market. Is it worthwhile to get it?

Only lens I have now is the 17-70mm, would love to get the 8-16mm though, maybe the 10-20mm is a good compromise?

Any comments?

I have the f/4-5.6 version and it's supposed to be a bit better optically than the f/3.5. I can tell you it's a decent lens but at 10 mm you will see quite a bit of distortion on the edges.

It's not better, no lens manufacturer makes a later iteration of a lens worse than its predecessor.

We can do without sloppy dogma, let's keep on-topic with this lens in question.

They have slightly different strengths, imaging resource's comments on the newer lens compared to the older are as follows:

The original Sigma ultrawide-angle zoom still holds its own, being slightly sharper at the telephoto end of its spectrum than the newer version. CA is also slightly better in the older version, though the newer version improves on corner shading and distortion. The new version uses 82mm filters instead of 77mm, but offers the constant ƒ/3.5 aperture.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm/review/

All UWA lenses have some weaknesses on the corners and edges, but the newer version is better than the older version in this respect. That being said, I don't think anyone should be disappointed with either one.

Did you test both versions or are you writing dogmatically again? I used both, and I agree with those who said earlier version had better image quality, and that includes on the edges.

I've got extensive experience of using many UWA lenses, so I know what good and bad looks like, the 10-20mm F3.5 is most definitely not a bad lens, and nor do reviews say it is.

People are welcome to choose between dogmas and real experience, of course.

You like using the word "dogma", it's almost as if it's your own "dogma", you should try extending your own vocabulary. I've made my point, I've given ample evidence of people using it successfully and to great effect, it's up to the OP to make his own mind up. The newer 10-20mm has a faster constant aperture, has a better coating on the actual lens body itself and is a very good performer, with good flare resistance, contrast and colour. Is it the best UWA lens ever made? obviously not, but it's great value and is capable of excellent results in the right hands. I have standards a lens has to meet, cognisant of the fact that no lens is perfect and all have their strengths and weaknesses, and I use this lens with no reservations, others will have to make their own minds up.

 absquatulate's gear list:absquatulate's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sigma sd Quattro Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
dlj
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow