 |
|
|
drwho9437
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 10, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $470.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build, relative cost
|
|
Cons:
|
cost, weight
|
|
|
I have used the Sigma 10-20 for more than a month now, getting the greatest use out of it on a trip to New Zealand. I found myself using the 10mm setting the most often. Images were generally sharp and artifact free. Most of the shooting was in good light and thus was at f8-f11. The 20mm setting was the next most often used as I often carried this lens only.
I have used the Tokina 12-24 f4, and would say that the build on the Sigma is very slightly lower. However, the focus mech and lighter weight more than make up for this.
The Canon is said to be better (and is even lower weight), however I did not have the money for it. 470 was hard enough for me. However I needed to recover wide angle working on 1.6x body. I am pleased to say that the Sigma has done that.
The very wide angle, naturally, opens up many opportunities for perspective manipulation.
The lens cap is hard to remove with the hood on which is perhaps the worst usability problem replacement with a center pinch cap is possible but the front element is very close to the threads making me wary of using them without a filter in place. I have not tried any filters as yet. Polarizers with lens this wide tend to produce undesired effects, so a protective filter is all I might use since this lens (to me) is so expensive. It is still quite a heafty lens when backpacking in the mountains.
Overall I am very pleased with the performance of this lens and feel it is a good alternative to the Canon and Tokina offering for someone who needs to save money (in the former case) or cares the most about the very wide or weight in the later case.
|
|
 Feb 3, 2006
|
|
TimSewell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality, price, HSM
|
|
Cons:
|
Could be a stop or two faster in an ideal world.
|
|
|
After what seemed like several years reading reviews of lenses in this range I decided eventually to go for the Sigma; partly a price decision, but also because it was the widest apart from the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and it didn't appear to me that the Canon's other qualities justified the GBP200+ price difference.
I haven't had much opportunity to put the lens through its paces yet due to extremely chilly conditions here in Brighton and my reluctance to get frostbite. From the few times I have used it I can already predict that I will be an addict. The HSM is a revelation, smooth, silent and fast. The lens feels lik something built to last and I have been delighted so far with the sharpness, lack of major CA and overall 'pop' my images have shown. I thoroghly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2006
|
|
johnedward1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
10mm, build, price
|
|
Cons:
|
blurred image, noise
|
|
|
Overall build is ok. IF there is focus lag it's not noticeble.
What I don't like is the fact that after roughly 300 shots all my pictures came out blurred or soft in all lighting conditions be it flash, indoor and direct sunlight.
There is also more noticeble noise compared to my canon efs 17-85.
I was really looking forward to this lens but after buying it I'm very disappointed with the results! My point and shoot cameras produce better images than what I get from this!!
I hope its just a QC problem as others pointed out but just surveying this review forum there are at least 30% of complaining the same thing!
I've been shooting for 20 years with Nikon SLRs and am now using a canon eos dslr.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2006
|
|
johnedward1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
good build and ergonomics. works well the eos 350d
|
|
Cons:
|
slight distortion, blured image in all lighting situations
|
|
|
If the images are blurred then what's the use buying the lens. I would pay US$300 more for a better one. If its a QC issue then it's just my luck. These digital products are quite poor with Quality assurance but that's another story.
I got it a week ago and shot about 200 images with it. all images were too soft in all lighting situations including direct sunlight!
The lens unlike my 17-85efs also significantly showed more noise using the same settings.
I'll re-post if its me or a QC issue. BUt after more than 200 images and lots of fiddling with it on my 350d it could really be a qc issue or just the level of image quality the lens can manage.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2006
|
|
kward
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range, sharpness and price
|
|
Cons:
|
sporadic quality control
|
|
|
Purchased the lens a few months ago. First copy had decentering issue that a few others have mentioned (soft on the right 1/3 of frame) worse at 20mm than at 10mm.
Sent to sigma service and replacement copy just fine. I'd
encourage anyone with decentering to get it repaired/replaced. I don't have canon L glass, but sharpness is comparable to 100 macro in center with just slight softening at corners. Nice quick and quiete autofocus.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2006
|
|
benjikan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 1412
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent contrast and sharpness at all focal lengths especially at the two extremes. Well built with excellent finition.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some distortion at 10 to 12 mm but not excessive as with all extreme wide angle lenses.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens about three months ago and have already used it for an eight page fashion story for LINEA Magazine. I am impressed with how sharp it is at the two extremes i.e. at 10 and 20 mm. I love how wide it goes. It reminds me of the Canon 16-35 full frame lens. It is extremely sharp stopped down 2/3 rds to 1 stop at all apertures. The construction is robust as is the finition. Purchase an excellent filter for this lens and keep it clean. Dust will show up in the photos if stopped down to F22. I use a Hoya Pro1 UV that stays on the lens at all times. Don't hesitate to purchase this lens. It is a keeper. It can be used on the Canon D1 with vignetting at 11 mm and full frame with vignetting at around 12.5 to 13mm. Not bad at all. One more thing. Being of EX quality, I would go as far as to say that it is comparable to "L" glass.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2006
|
|
drekhead
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
AF Good, Sturdy Build, Huge FOV
|
|
Cons:
|
Fringing on edges, distortion, Bad vignetting, edges soft even at f/8 or smaller, esp. on right side
|
|
|
Looks nice, feels nice, but the optics just don't cut the mustard. Maybe I have a bad one? Uneven clarity, like one area is sharp but another is blurred, but there's nothing on the lens elements and my other lenses are fine. Mostly blurred toward right edge.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
form
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2516
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $460.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Great color, very fast AF, sharp in center. Comes with practical, unobtrusive lens hood. Built like a tank. Heaviness actually a boon because of increased stability.
|
|
Cons:
|
f/4-5.6 is fairly slow, noticeable vignetting at most apertures, edge CA not as controlled as Canon 10-22mm. Textured finish isn't really my preference. Possible QC issues.
|
|
|
I've used this lens for about a month and a half now. I confess that I was never totally happy or at ease with it from the start (you know how sometimes you just feel uncomfortable about a particular new lens or other recent purchase). I think my unease was warranted.
After testing as well as casual use over time, I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't user error, dirt, or a problem with my eyes. The problem? Pretty much the entire right 1/3 of most/all shots I take with this lens gradually get much softer, to the point of eye-watering blur, whereas the left side retains much more detail and clarity and is, in fact, rather sharp all the way to the edge (shooting at f/8). This seems to occur anywhere, whether photographing the interior of a building or shooting landscapes. I've recently contacted Sigma regarding this, as I believe it may be a defective lens. Ask me for samples of this very consistent anomaly if you want to see what I mean.
If I can get one that has mine's left-side sharpness on both sides, I'll be completely satisfied. CA and vignetting are both much more easily rectified than softness/blur.
Recommended because I believe that a good copy will produce truly excellent images.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
rogandrose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I have 17-40L and wanted a true uwa lens. I have not compared with the Canon uwa but I rate this on a par if not better than the 17-40L for sharpness. If the AF is slower I have not noticed, Totally recommended
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can find
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
robscomputer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 206
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Super wide 10mm on non-EFS bodies, price, build quality, smaller size
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight sharpness issue, slower auto focusing
|
|
|
I shoot with a Canon 10D and most of the time use the 17-40mm f/4L for my wide angle shots. With the 1.6x conversion the 17mm is closer to a 28mm lens which really isn't wide angle. Since I could not use the Canon 10-22mm EFS lens, I was excited about Sigma 10-20mm lens. I just recently bought a Peleng 8mm fisheye and enjoy taking wide angle photos.
After a few photo outings with the Sigma lens I noticed a few things, please note, I am comparing these with my previous lens, 17-40mm f/4L. The autofocus felt a tad slower on the Sigma, I tested this in a bright room and outside in lower lighting at dusk. While I didn't compare the two lenses between each other at the same time, it was my personal feeling that the Sigma took longer to focus lock. I also suspect this is from the one stop slower at zoom lens apature. My previous lens is f/4 from wide to zoom.
Another item I noticed was the slight soft focus of the images when using this lens. Again this could be a softer copy than the others have posted but the images seemed to require more sharpening and didn't have the over all sharpness that the 17-40mm had. My 10D is also set to netural for in camera processing, and I do all of my sharpening from Photoshop. In the images I tested were from a varity of lighting and subjects, the ones that produced the sharpest where in direct bright daylight. Also the shots were using varing apatures, from wide open to f/14.
Overall I would still highly recommend this lens for any one looking for a ultra wide angle lens. The only other lens I know in this area is the Canon 10-22mm EFS which is not useable if you are using an older camera such as my 10D. The slight faults of the lens that I found are just my nitpicking, and it's still produces great pictures.
Oh, for any film or full frame shooter, this lens on my film Canon will work at 12mm. you can also use it at 10mm but have a serious vinetting at the corners (very similar to using a 8mm on a 1.6x body).
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2006
|
|
hotpasta
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, sharpness, useability...it's my favourite lens
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
As a lover of super wide angle photography, when this lens was announced, I couldn't wait to get one. I think Sigma is making some of the best lenses on a quality/price level. I have the 30mm 1.4 and have just ordered the 105 2.8 Macro. I also have the Bigma 50-500 which I also love.
The other option for me was the 12-24 Tokina or Nikkor, but the Sigma won hands down. It's on my camera 90% of the time.
While on a six week holiday with my family around the world, I took some amazing photos in New York and Italy. Most of the 100,000 shots were done with this lens. It is crisp and capable offitting so much into the frame. The HSM is amazing and fast. Sigma provide the case and the lens hood. They are making some wonderful lenses and this is one of them. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
benudkow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 83
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, great build quality, amazing color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
This is an amazing lens. I looked at the Tokina 12-24 and the Canon 10-22 as well, but the Canon was way too expensive and the Tokina was just not wide enough (I want 10mm!). I am so glad I saved $300-$400 on the Canon and got the Sigma instead.
AF is super quick, but it doesn't really matter how quick it is since everything over 3 feet is focused at infinity anyways. 
I've used this lens for artistic architectural shots and it's amazing what this lens will do with a 30 story skyscraper. You can stand on the same side of the street as the building and get the whole thing in the frame. Mind you parallel lines will converge, but it makes for a neat effect.
This lens also takes some of the most fun portraits you'll ever see. I wouldn't take photos of your wife/girlfriend since it distorts the face, but it's a lot of fun with friends, kids and pets.
All photos taken with this lens have the most vibrant colors and are sharp even in the corners. I never thought I'd like a lens as wide as this as much as I do, but this is my new favorite lens. It makes me look at things with a whole new eye, and it's crazy how much you can fit in an image from just 6cm away.
Don't listen to the Tokina folks who swear by that lens. So what if it's a constant f/4? Go buy this Sigma and you'll never look back.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2006
|
|
Glassbottle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 567
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, sharp, good flare resistance for an ultrawide, good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow max aperture, some vignetting wide open at 10mm, uneven distortion (but minor and correctable with PTLens)
|
|
|
I have to disagree with the first poster... My lens is sharp, even wide open. It also displays remarkable flare resistance for an ultrawide. Build quality is excellent. Focus and zoom rings were stiff at first (seems to be a Sigma tradition) but soon eased up with use.
Those who complain of distortion need to understand the difference between perspective distortion (common to all wide angles, and one of the reasons you buy them) and oddball lens distortion. This lens does display a minor amount of the latter, but it's easily fixed with the free PS plugin PTLens, and it's not apparent in the vast majority of pictures.
For me, this lens was the answer to a prayer -- a good-quality ultrawide for 1.6x crop factor at a reasonable price. Sigma has a winner here. Points off only for the slow max apertures. Overall, highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2006
|
|
speedfile
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 510
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I can't think of another better than this, all i need is this and 28-135 IS for anything !
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing. the distortion......
|
|
|
I can't think of another better than this, all i need is this and 28-135 IS for anything !
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2006
|
|
Melt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Location: Greece
Posts: 58
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Really wide / Great Optical Performance
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I always use it stopped down to f8-f11 mainly for landscape work. Great sharpness, colours and optical performance for such a wide angle lens. I'm totally satisfied...
Don't forget to use the lens hood and be careful with the sun (flare)...
Highly Recommended
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2006
|
|
jeep
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, Optical quality and price
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I've owned this lens for about 4 months now. I'm very pleased with the results. Matches my 17-40L in quality when stoped down a couple of stops. After I'd bought it, I saw an in depth test report for the lens, head to head with the Canon 10 - 20mm, complete with MTF charts, the reviewers opion was, that optically there was little to choose between them, the Canon lens has a bigger maximum aperture, so is slightly faster. But the Sigma is half the price. (Amateur Photographer Magazine December 2005 UK)
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
165
|
381973
|
Jan 18, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
84% of reviewers
|
$472.26
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.92
|
8.93
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
