Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM - Examples and Advice needed

[Andrew Ryan]

All of this talk about exchanging lenses... I know you can get a bad deal anywhere and even especially on ebay, but when I decided to buy I bought on ebay from an individual that said "this is a very sharp copy". I just trusted and that is what I got. Most folks are pretty honest when they depend on good feed back.. at least that has been my experience. I blew up one of the vertical lightning shots I posted earlier into a 12X16 print and really could not believe the detail of the city lights in the distance.. down in the bottom left corner. I'd say 99% of the time I'm shooting at infinity so focusing isn't much of an issue. In auto mode mine does hunt around at times and sometimes can't find focus when pointed at plain surfaces. I thought that was a fairly common problem with many lenses.

I just remembered that I bought my sigma off of ebay. I have had no problems, that I know of, with the lens. So ebay is an option if you are careful.

 

[Christopher E. Kincaid]

My test between two last year.

I purchased this lens last January, the first lens shown below as lens 2 was the first I got in, I requested a replacement as this had nothing sharp near the edges.

When it arrived I tested them side by side in both MF and AF modes with the same results.

The first lens I got showed better color representation while having serious contrast sharpness / focus issues on the edges. The second Listed as Lens 1 had less accurate color representation but was much sharper all around.

Thanks for the post Jim... That is certainly a more detailed test than I did. I am guessing that you kept Lens 1. Do you remember the camera settings you used for the test? There is no way that Lens 2 would take good pictures no matter the subject matter or the skill of the photographer.

I want to say that you have a great website Jim. The pictures are great and I really like the first paragragh on the site's home page: "I am more of a nature photographer than anything else. I am more interested in seeking and photographing what God has created rather than what man has made."
A really nice statement...

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Thanks for the post Jim... That is certainly a more detailed test than I did. I am guessing that you kept Lens 1.

Yes in spite if the color being less accurate, I can chance color a bit, loss of sharpness... Not so much.

Do you remember the camera settings you used for the test? There is no way that Lens 2 would take good pictures no matter the subject matter or the skill of the photographer.

f:4 (f:8 is the reported best for this lens), 1/1500 and ISO 100 I believe.

I want to say that you have a great website Jim. The pictures are great and I really like the first paragraph on the site's home page: "I am more of a nature photographer than anything else. I am more interested in seeking and photographing what God has created rather than what man has made."
A really nice statement...

While I do 100% believe in God that statement is mostly that architecture bores me to death and hold nothing up to what God created in nature. I see people doing all kinds of shots of buildings and such and people just ooh and aah... I am more like "what in the world are they seeing?" The only real exceptions to my disinterest in man made stuff is old barns and bridges for the most part.

Every once in a while I cant resist a real old building or structure like below, both also related to the thread as I used the 10-20mm and would have not gotten the shot as I did without it. But beyond that even the poles have to go. I have missed some great shots driving further to get buildings and poles out of a potential shot.

Chase County Courthouse. The oldest operating courthouse in Kansas.



A very tall old silo

 

[Jim Saueressig]

As this thread already exists you might want to consider the newer Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC when considering the 10-20mm lens. This lens is about $200 more but has a 3.5 Aperture from 10-20mm where the original runs 4-5.6. This will still be faster than the new 8-16 mm f 4.5-5.6 that is coming out.

 

[Darren Addy]

As this thread already exists you might want to consider the newer Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC when considering the 10-20mm lens. This lens is about $200 more but has a 3.5 Aperture from 10-20mm where the original runs 4-5.6. This will still be faster than the new 8-16 mm f 4.5-5.6 that is coming out.

Counterpoint:

The new Sigma 10-20 mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM leaves us with mixed feelings. The build quality of the lens is certainly excellent, distortion is a little high at the wide end (but excellent for the rest of the zoom range), there's also a fair amount of vignetting and CA, but that's typical for this lens class. Resolution in the center is excellent, borders also are nothing to complain about and corner performance is ok at 15 and 20 mm, but very disappointing at 10 mm. In summary, it makes one wonder who's supposed to buy this lens. Those who already own the older and slower Sigma 10-20 most likely don't feel the need to upgrade, especially if they already own filters to go with the lens. Even those who purchase new will probably find the older design with its lower price point more attractive. Unless you really need the speed of this lens, but for those use cases the Tokina 11-16/2.8 is probably the more attractive option.

Full review: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=2

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Yeah but I can't help but wonder if they had a poor copy of the lens for the test? Either way I would be real slow to buy into the new lens without a bunch of people getting out quality reports before I grabbed one.

 

[Evan Bookbinder]

Last summer there were several instances where my 18-200mm just could not open wide enough to capture some major beasties in their grandeur. I've been looking for an ultra-wide since that time for my Nikon D200.

I hate to change directions, but this thread was originally started by the poster due to the unavailability of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. With access to this lens finally having returned to the US in the past month, does any ST member own this lens? It seems to get rave reviews everywhere I look, with numerous examples demonstrating its fantastic quality. The $600 price tag seems quite reasonable.

Any reasons not to go with this vs. the Sigma 10-20mm? Like others have said, the new f/3.5 is seemingly an improvement, but the same size is so limited and mixed from the reviewers that I wouldn't feel comfortable going that route yet.

Evan

 

[Derek Weston]

Last summer there were several instances where my 18-200mm just could not open wide enough to capture some major beasties in their grandeur. I've been looking for an ultra-wide since that time for my Nikon D200.

I hate to change directions, but this thread was originally started by the poster due to the unavailability of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. With access to this lens finally having returned to the US in the past month, does any ST member own this lens? It seems to get rave reviews everywhere I look, with numerous examples demonstrating its fantastic quality. The $600 price tag seems quite reasonable.

Any reasons not to go with this vs. the Sigma 10-20mm? Like others have said, the new f/3.5 is seemingly an improvement, but the same size is so limited and mixed from the reviewers that I wouldn't feel comfortable going that route yet.

Evan

recently took the tokina out with me on a trip. No pro here -- only been into DLSR photography for a quarter year -- but not bad results wise:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/6315/dunes.jpg
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1240/img1717.png
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4373776798_829af9952e_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4373042487_f07223b99f_o.jpg

note, couple of those were cropped vertically. Lens is contrasty and has great color...

 

[Greg Campbell]

I'm somewhat surprised that people are willing to buy a lens that is so poorly built! Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't NEED to hunt about for a 'good' copy? The situation doesn't say much for Sigma's QC, and I'd be very leery of the lens' long term durability and functional reliability.

 

[Derek Weston]

I'm somewhat surprised that people are willing to buy a lens that is so poorly built! Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't NEED to hunt about for a 'good' copy? The situation doesn't say much for Sigma's QC, and I'd be very leery of the lens' long term durability and functional reliability.

I heard about QC issues with the Tokina I bought. Same with canon. I've heard of people getting bad Canon ef 10-22mm copies. To an extent... seems this is just something you have to deal with when buying lenses. (or perhaps wide angle lenses are harder to get right)

 

[Jim Saueressig]

I'm somewhat surprised that people are willing to buy a lens that is so poorly built! Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't NEED to hunt about for a 'good' copy? The situation doesn't say much for Sigma's QC, and I'd be very leery of the lens' long term durability and functional reliability.

Well, I think that the sheer number of these lenses out there causes there to be more QC horror stories but at the same time the price difference from the Sigma's to some of the name brand's are so extreme you are willing to ship a few back until you get it right.