Replacement for my 10-20..or am I just doing it wrong?

Youstolemyname

Youstolemyname

Youstolemyname

Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
5,231
Location
The Voice Of Football
I just can't seem to get pin sharp images out of my 10-20 sigma :(

Here are some samples taken on my hols:







then one with the 55-250mm



The 55-250 produces lovely shots but I just can't get the same clarity out of the 10-20. The detail isn't there and arguably my compact produces better shots most of the time!

So, am I 'doing it wrong' with the 10-20 or is that the best I can expect? If so, what replacements are there to go for that come recommended?

Thanks for any advice...
 
It seems like the first shot was probably due to the 1/30s shutter speed, assuming it's hand held? The people in that shot definitely have motion blur. The centre sharpness is there and at f10, the corner sharpness is pretty poor.

You might have a 'lemon' but best try shooting either on a tripod or at a faster shutter speed (1/80 at least) to count motion blur (be it movement or wind) out of the equation.

Number 2 seems a lot better than number 1 too.
 
Thanks Mr Jones- it just seems though that the image quality of the 55-250 is vastly better. I shot at the same Fstop, just the shutter speed was slightly faster in the sample image.

I am wondering whether to sell the 10-20 and either get the Canon equivalent or get something less wide...
 
Yeah that one in my Flickr is fine, its when I start shooting at stuff that is that little bit further away like in a landscape. It just doesn't capture the detail at distance which is a bit pants as that is what I bought it for...
 
I went through 3 10-20s and they were all **** to put it quite simply.

Borrowed a 6 year old 10-22 and it was tack sharp, so I bought my own one.

Never looked back!

Could send your 10-20 off for calibration to Sigma, but I did that and it came back worse.

YMMV of course, but my advise is to get the canon TBQH.
 
I had mine 'calibrated' by Sigma and it did nothing. Am properly gutted about it because I used it for some landscape shots in Yosemite park- a place I doubt I will get to again- and I would have been better off using my compact to be honest....

Think it's time for trading it in against the Canon.
 
I would say if wide is your thing go for a Full Frame camera, makes life much easier on the lens. Ie 17-40L is ideal.
Second, always use a lens shade and at least a Skylight filter, but preferably a Polarizer, but this may be difficult on the 10mm wides etc. All will help the contrast and definition on distance shots.
 
This one is the perfect example of what I mean:



At full size there just seems to be no definition in the rock, the leaves or the shadows. Kind of reminds me of something shot on a camera phone. That had a Polariser on it as well. :/

Can't really justify a full frame camera, it's only a little hobby with me. The 10-20 cost almost as much as the 400D body :O.

Wondering whether to sell the 10-20 and get an 'all purpose' lens as on holiday it was a right pain switching lenses all the time or sell the 10-20 and put 300 towards a Canon equivalent...

Any suggestions?
 
There was an article a while back about the tolerances in lense alignment and sensor alignment. Your lense can be within Sigma's tolerance but when combined with your particular camera could produce sub standard results.

Do you know anyone else with a Canon? I have a 10-20 and the results are much better on my D90 than my D40 and it's just not the pixels.
 
I've got a Sigma 12-24 and I've never had any problems with them. If you're desperate for change you can get one of those. I've just checked the online auction site and there's one on there for £82 with 4 bids. They generally go for £400 though. I was going to sell mine to get a new lens, but it orginally cost me £450 and now they're £670!

I would post examples, but my photos with it are on my other drive which this motherboard doesn't support and the adapter I bought to get them, doesn't work :(
 
Last edited:
Youstolemyname said:
This one is the perfect example of what I mean:



At full size there just seems to be no definition in the rock, the leaves or the shadows. Kind of reminds me of something shot on a camera phone. That had a Polariser on it as well. :/

Can't really justify a full frame camera, it's only a little hobby with me. The 10-20 cost almost as much as the 400D body :O.

Wondering whether to sell the 10-20 and get an 'all purpose' lens as on holiday it was a right pain switching lenses all the time or sell the 10-20 and put 300 towards a Canon equivalent...

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

what polariser did you use? Cheap polarizers definitely decrease contrast and sharpness.

Did you use a good quality tripod?

have you checked focusing issues by singing live view to focus?
A good sigma 10-20 is as sharp really as the canon or Nikon equivalents. Not a big difference anyway.
 
A combination of user error and a cheap polariser?

Alternatively, it could be having issues with focusing to infinity, since the one robertgilbert86 linked to looks absolutely fine and a couple of the shots in the OP look slightly front-focussed.
 
Shouldn't really be using a polariser on that focal length anyway, the strength of the effect will vary across the sky on such a wide lens...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom