so i just bought a sigma 10-20mm lens

buzzlightweight

buzzlightweight

buzzlightweight

Associate
Joined
22 Aug 2010
Posts
2,212
Location
In My Command Center
Ok i was gonna buy the canon 10-22 but the sigma is so much cheaper, i have looked through google and there are very conflicting reports on it.

Im no pro by any stretch and i dont sell my pictures, i only shoot for fun, with that said have i chosen the right lens?

Do any of you guys use it?

many thanks Buzz
 
I've owned one and they are superb. Don't worry about how good it is compared to the Canon, just worry about what results you can get from it.

My advice is stop it down by at least 2-3 stops from maximum aperture at whatever focal length you are at and you'll pretty much be at maximum sharpness.
 
My old school had one that we could borrow as a wide-angle lens, we put it side by side in a test against the Canon 10-22mm, and whilst we could see that the Canon was the better lens (mainly when looking at the image at 100% magnification), but when looking at the shot as a whole, there was nothing that jumped out to us that justified the extra cost of the Canon.

I'd say you've made the right choice :)
 
I had one, had some fun using it then sold it on... then missed it so much I bought another one :D

Fantastic lens for the cost :)
 
I think the biggest issue is QC. I've seen pics from a Sigma where it was soft down the left side of the frame, lens was returned for an exchange, the next one was similarly soft down the right, also returned for an exchange, that one was soft down both sides. Poor guy was obviously unlucky!

Take some good shots of trees etc at say f8, if its sharp right across the image its a keeper !
 
Sigma produce some awful lenses.

They also produce some amazing lenses.

Quality control is poor, which is why the above is true. I've had God awful copies of lenses that get decent reviews, and I'm the current owner of one of their most slated lenses (120-300 f2.8); I must have the best copy ever as it's pin sharp, has excellent contrast and excluding a minor back focusing issue (which is easily correctable), is amazing.

Best bet is to check it out when it arrives and see if there are any obvious issues, otherwise it'll be a keeper.

Out of interest, is it the constant aperture version or not?
 
buzzlightweight said:
Ok i was gonna buy the canon 10-22 but the sigma is so much cheaper, i have looked through google and there are very conflicting reports on it.

Im no pro by any stretch and i dont sell my pictures, i only shoot for fun, with that said have i chosen the right lens?

Do any of you guys use it?

many thanks Buzz
Click to expand...

I own one (the older variable aperture one), stopped down which is I always do anyway the lens is very sharp over most of the frame.

The biggest factor is going to be your ability. These lenses are very, very hard to use correctly, most people simply see it as a way to squeeze more stuff into the frame, but that invariably leads to poor photographs.

You have to think much more carefully about compositions, perspectives, how the viewer will parse the photograph, how to manipulate leading lines etc.
 
D.P. said:
The biggest factor is going to be your ability. These lenses are very, very hard to use correctly, most people simply see it as a way to squeeze more stuff into the frame, but that invariably leads to poor photographs.

...perspectives...
Click to expand...

Perspective. That's the big one; ultra wides are all about playing with perspective and creative distortion and not to fit as much of the image in as possible... that usually leads to underwhelming photos. An example of how to use this lens is my photo of a Super Guppy which plays with the perspective and gives you a real sense of both the size and how imposing it is in person, something I couldn't have achieved with a longer lens.
 
Crafty said:
I think the biggest issue is QC. I've seen pics from a Sigma where it was soft down the left side of the frame, lens was returned for an exchange, the next one was similarly soft down the right, also returned for an exchange, that one was soft down both sides. Poor guy was obviously unlucky!

Take some good shots of trees etc at say f8, if its sharp right across the image its a keeper !
Click to expand...

I have heard from others about stopping down, i will have a go through the stops and check the quality, ty

Auraomega said:
Sigma produce some awful lenses.

They also produce some amazing lenses.

Quality control is poor, which is why the above is true. I've had God awful copies of lenses that get decent reviews, and I'm the current owner of one of their most slated lenses (120-300 f2.8); I must have the best copy ever as it's pin sharp, has excellent contrast and excluding a minor back focusing issue (which is easily correctable), is amazing.

Best bet is to check it out when it arrives and see if there are any obvious issues, otherwise it'll be a keeper.

Out of interest, is it the constant aperture version or not?
Click to expand...

i have two sigma lenses, 18-50 2.8, 18-200 3.5 and they have both been very good lenses, iv only just got the 18-50 so its still in its infancy, but the 18-200 has been working flawlessly and tbh i havent really noticed any issues.
I bought the variable aperture version.

D.P. said:
I own one (the older variable aperture one), stopped down which is I always do anyway the lens is very sharp over most of the frame.

The biggest factor is going to be your ability. These lenses are very, very hard to use correctly, most people simply see it as a way to squeeze more stuff into the frame, but that invariably leads to poor photographs.

You have to think much more carefully about compositions, perspectives, how the viewer will parse the photograph, how to manipulate leading lines etc.
Click to expand...

thats good to know i will bear that in mind
 
I brought one of these lenses and its brilliant. Only problem is I have a 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-250mm zoom lens and I like the 10-20mm sigma that much I use it for most of my photos now. :)
 
hahaha, my 18-200 is an all rounder and now i have my 18-50 it never gets used! I will try and use the appropriate lens for the job ;)

Im going to buy a nifty fifty lens next, probably the 1.4 if i can find a decent one on flea bay :)
 
buzzlightweight said:
i have two sigma lenses, 18-50 2.8, 18-200 3.5 and they have both been very good lenses, iv only just got the 18-50 so its still in its infancy, but the 18-200 has been working flawlessly and tbh i havent really noticed any issues.
Click to expand...

Well it's not like it's a 50/50 split of good and bad, but there is a higher percent of bad copies sold than for Nikon/Canon/Tokina (can't comment on Tamron), my experience was just unlucky (or lucky, when you consider the price of the 120-300 2.8), I do however see a few people complaining about their Sigma's in the shop... but that of course is debatable as to whether it's user error a lot of the time :p

The only Sigma lens I'd ever be tempted to buy is the 12-24mm as it's the widest full frame lens in production... had 2 in the shop used and when I tested them 1 was a fair bit better than the other. Sigma!
 
Sigma and tamron lenses should really only be purchased in a shop after testing, would never buy one online although some lenses are more and less prone than others.
In general it is nice to buy camera lenses in a shop so you can try them out on your camera first, even Nikon and Canon lenses are only built to within certain tolerances
 
Had it many years ago on a Nikon D70, great lens! Took many a good photos with it. Although it got replace with a Canon 5D with 24-70L, still would have another in a heart beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom