Sigma 10-20mm an everyday lens?

number41

number41

number41

Associate
Joined
15 Jul 2006
Posts
587
Location
Southampton
Long story short, I currently own only a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm after having enough of the Tamron 17-50's purple fringing ruining my photos!

So now back to the drawing board and after seeing pics at 10mm fancy a wide lens. Cant afford more than one lens at the moment so wondering if anyone uses the Sigma as an everyday lens?

I'm tempted by the Canon 17-40mm L but do I really need the extra 20mm?

Only problem with the sigma is that it isnt the fastest lens around. How does it fare in low light conditions? The Tamron was 2.8 but had serious issues focussing in low light making it useless anyway lol.
 
The Sigma 10-20 is far too wide for an everyday lens. As Justin says, the 17-40 L on a crop camera is a good everyday lens. It is what I use and since buying I've not actually used my Sigma 10-20.

EDIT: I'm lying I've used it for about 30 photos out of about 5000. :D
 
Hehe. Well as its summer I'm after a macro lens at some point too. Still cant decide if I want the 17-40 or 10-20 as I generally prefer wildlife or macro photography but fancied some wide angle shots!

Tempted to get the 18-55mm kit lens to see what thats like for general shots! Its only £30 and will at least let me be able to use the camera whilst deciding. Love my 70-200 and 50mm but theyre just too long for general shots.

Was hoping the 10-20 was OK for general use but having never used one I wouldnt know what theyre like to live with. Looks like the 17-40mm it is then and then the 10-20mm at some point in the future for "fun" shots!
 
I suppose it depends a lot on what you photograph.

With the exception of motorsport, I spend about 60% of the time with the 24-105L on and 40% with the 10-22.

How do you find your current 17-50 in terms of focal length? Do you ever find yourself wishing it was a bit longer/shorter?

If that lens suits most of the photographs you take then the 17-40L might be a good choice (you have mentioned 50 isnt wide enough anyway so loosing 10mm shouldnt matter so much)

Unless you have a specific need for the ultra wide angle I would go for the 17-40, superwide zooms are great, but given the choice I would get something with a bit more reach first, and then a wide angle lens.

Wide angle every day just wouldnt work for me.
 
I've got the 10-20 which I use about 80% of the time. I've recently bought the Sigma 24-70 which is a great addition and replacment to the kit lens (coupled with the 10-20).

Nazbit has hit the nail on the head though :)
 
I couldn't use a 10-20 for every day use
i've gone for the 17-85 IS; a but cheaper than L glass, quite a step up from the kit lens and wide enough for most bits and pieces that I require with some range on it, which doesn't go beyond the lenses capabilities
fast quiet and stabilised so checks every box for me
my other most used lens is my 50mm 1.4 so I'm perhaps in a different mind set to you guys
 
I think after getting the 105mm Macro lens, my next purchase will be the Sigma 10-20mm. Im not if personally I could use it as a everyday lens, as i tend to take more macro shots than anything else. Having said that, for landscapes I find myself putting my stock lens to 18mm, and still wanting to go much wider. I don't think there is an ideal everyday lens for me tbh, unless someones comes up with a 10mm-200mm F1.2 HSM VR Micro. (for cheap) :p
 
Hehe. Well as its summer I'm after a macro lens at some point too. Still cant decide if I want the 17-40 or 10-20 as I generally prefer wildlife or macro photography but fancied some wide angle shots!
Click to expand...

If you want to do wildlife and macro then no, in my opinion, it wont help at all, for that you really need a telephoto.

You could creep close to the wildlife, but good luck with that.

If you can only afford to get one lens at the moment, then you need to decide what you want to photgraph as a priority.

for a general every day wide ish lens maybe try a better version of the Tamron 17-50's


I am not sure about the purple fringing you mentioned, I have a nikon d50 and the kit lens on that doesent have any serious purple fringing (that I have noticed anyway) and that is a Nikon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G AFS DX lens. I would have thought your 2.8 would be better, maybe you just got a bad example, I guess that does happen


As with most things, you get what you pay for, you could a lovely lens that is lightning fast and focuses in very low light with no problem, but then again you could spend 5 grand on it :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom