 |
|
|
Dave Indech
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $455.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Smooth zoom and focus, excellent build, small and light, included lens hood, potentially(!) superior optics
|
|
Cons:
|
4 of 4 samples were decentered; horrible QC
|
|
|
I want so much to like this lens. I tried four copies in a series, all from Amazon, which has an excellent RMA policy. All of them were decentered.
Decentering on a lens like this means that the center is sharp, the right side (always the right side) is sharp, and the left 1/3 of the frame is soft. The left 1/5 of the frame would be extremely soft. The lens would be weakest at open apertures and 10mm, and acceptable stopped down on the long end. The 18-55 kit lens (not a spectacular optic) had far better edge performance at the same apertures and focal lengths. Center performance on all copies was universally excellent at all apertures, however.
I sent the best copy (mild decentering) back to Sigma to have it serviced. It came back the worst of the lot.
If not for the QC, this lens would be every bit the equal (or superior) of the Canon 10-22 at $180 less. I've seen good copies, I know what it's capable of, I just wasn't able to get one. The HSM focus is almost the equal of the USM on my 100/2. Same soft rolling sound, same speed, and it was exactly accurate at all distances.
The build quality is excellent. I didn't have the 10-20 long enough to comment on the longetivity of the finish, but the focus and zoom rings were very smooth. The general feel is significantly better (and tighter) than my 28-135, but a step down (because it's largely plastic) from my 200/2.8L.
The upshot is this: If you're willing to jump through these hoops to find yourself a copy with all the elements in proper alignment, it's a stellar optic, and even better than the Canon. But if you value your time at all, just buy the 10-22.
|
|
 Dec 27, 2007
|
|
Mark Chapman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
After reading many excellent reviews of this lens, I decided to get it as my main ultra-wide landscape lens. I'm so disappointed with this lens. On the positive side, its well made, feels high quality. Apart from that, not much positive I can say about the one I've got.
|
|
Cons:
|
The results I've got so far with this lens have been terrible. The colour is awful - this lens gives a very noticeable yellowish cast to the colour, which I have heard others complain about Sigma lenses having this characteristic. Of course there is distortion with this lens, thats inevitable really. But what really bothers me is how soft the results are with this lens, especially (but not only) on the right hand side. Perhaps I just got a poor copy, because many people say this lens is sharp. I am not happy and will be returning it to Sigma for testing and possible adjustment/ replacement.
|
|
|
I was really looking forward to getting this lens, but now I wish I had spent more and got the Canon instead. This lens has fallen far far short of my expectations, especially after reading so many good reviews of it. The lens feels and looks quality. It's solid, very well made, and surprisingly heavy.
BUT, and its a huge but,...the results I've got with it are WAY short of what I expected. To be fair its quite good at some settings, and the sharpness at the centre is good. The edges are really, really soft. The yellowish colour this lens gives really annoys me. It doesn't accurately reproduce colours. I prefer a more neutral lens. I'm beginning to think I was just unlucky and got a rubbish copy, but if thats the case, then Sigmas QC department must be incredibly slack. I'll try another copy and hopefully get a better one, but it will have to be something special to persuade me to buy a Sigma lens again.
It has it's good points, but at the end of the day it comes down to image quality for me, which is why I give it a poor overall rating.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007
|
|
Hitendra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2007
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $539.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality at bargain price.
|
|
Cons:
|
77 filter size. Lens cap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2007
|
|
Rotheus Latham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $445.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very wide, good sharpness, quiet, very well built. The first one i had was very soft all over. Sent it back and the second one is much better.
|
|
Cons:
|
some distortion wide open, but what do I expect?
|
|
|
This is a fun lens to play with. Has a very wide angle of view wide open. I wish the first one had been good out of the box, but the second one was.
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2007
|
|
Teru Kage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good overall sharpness for an ultra wide angle
Fast focus
Great value for money
|
|
Cons:
|
Non-uniform distortion at max wide; hard to correct in PS
|
|
I've had this lens for over a year now and it's an absolute joy to use. I love to go wide and so far this lens hasn't let me down. I was seriously considering the 12-24mm Nikon, but at nearly twice the cost and offering 2mm less on the wide end (which makes a significant difference at this focal length), I decided to go Sigma.
The focus is fast and the corner to corner sharpness is pretty good for an ultra-wide angle lens. If I had to find a fault, it would be the non-uniform distortion at 10mm. Instead of the usual barrel shape, the distortion forms a slight "m" shape, which proves difficult to correct in PhotoShop. However, unless I'm shooting flat horizons or other straight lines, this distortion rarely shows.
Being an EX lens, it has the usual sparkly matte finish (which you either hate or don't). So far, no problems with the finish flaking off.
I would definitely recommend this lens.
Some samples:
At 10mm
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Street/Overpass_0358_bw
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Architecture/HKCEC_3358
At 20mm
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Shing_Mun_Reservoir/Shing_Mun_2801_c
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
Hitendra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2007
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $539.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality at bargain price.
|
|
Cons:
|
77 filter size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2007
|
|
Peter twohey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 118
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality-Sharp-Sharp-Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
F2.8 would have been really nice.
|
|
|
I have been looking for a wide angle for some time.I purchased this from ebay UK from a photographer who was forced to sell his kit and ascertained before bidding that it was a good example.Quite simply-I love it.It is brilliant in town at night.It is brilliant with architecture.It is brilliant with landscape and it is brilliant indoors.By the way-did I mention that it is brilliant!
Having read the reviews on FM I was clear in my mind that this was the lens for me.It sems that all the negatives surround QC issues and that if you can get a good one then it is almost perfect. It is very sharp throughout the range with a little softness creeping in at 20mm which is hardly a problem.For sure adjusting a polariser is fiddly with the lens hood on but that is true with most lens hoods.Build quality feels really solid and the lens has a quality look to it.Image quality is right up there with L glass.
If you can get a good copy then buying this lens becomes a no brainer.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
S Mandgaryan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, AF, Quiet, Super Wide, SHARP!
|
|
Cons:
|
Taking off the lens cap with the lens hood attatched (Fixed by buying a pinch lens cap), Soft at 20mm.
|
|
|
I was deciding between this lens, and the Sigma 18-200 OS lens, but I am glad that I got the 10-20, and this is why.
If you want to shoot wide, have a crop body, have $500 or so laying around, and are in need of a high quality, super sharp lens, and don't want to pay for the Canon EF-S 10-22, this lens is your perfect match.
I tested the sharpness of the lens at 10mm at 100% crop, this thing is sharper than the 50mm 1.8 prime, however it isn't that sharp at 20mm.
As for CA, I didnt see any, but the IQ of the lens makes it truly worthy of spending $500 on.
Get this lens, you wont regret it!
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007
|
|
THarley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 3, 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Reasonably sharp, well built, nice finish, WIDE. CA well controlled.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF needs calibration on my copy, lens cover not easy to remove with lens hood attached.
|
|
|
Had a lot of difficulties deciding which wide zoom to buy - and ended up with this one bought out of Hong Kong on Ebay. Had to pay taxes and customs so I didn't save anything.
I knew that QC is substandard on this lens so I was not surprised that it didn't focus corrctly at long distances. This is not a huge problem as I can focus manually. I think I will get it calibrated though.
Colors are OK and the distortions is easily corrected in PTLens. It's a whole lot of fun to play with and I am sure that I will be using it a great deal in the future
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007
|
|
E. Amador
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Build Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
The first copy was bad, WB changes in the same condition (tripod) indoor
|
|
|
The first copy I tried was bad. The upper right corner was out of focus (Thanks to this forum, I was warned).
The second one was sharp.
One question. Do you experience WB changes in Auto WB when you shoot in the same conditions ?
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2007
|
|
grendel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, sharp, good color, IQ as good as the canon 10-22, build
|
|
Cons:
|
lens had to go back to sigma for calibration due to soft left hand side, slow at f/4
|
|
I've had this lens for a year and a half and shot probably thousands of pictures with it. For a 1.6x crop sensor, you don't have a lot of choice...it's this or the canon. IQ is as good as the Canon, though obviously limited by the distortion you get on a 10mm lens.
The canon has moderately better autofocus and probably build, BUT autofocus is almost pointless on this lens. At 10mm and f/8, your hyperfocal distance is just over 2 feet so the A/F becomes kind of redundant. You're never waiting for it to focus, trust me. 
The only reason to avoid this one is if you plan to switch to a full frame camera in the near future...
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2007
|
|
Perry Ge
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, colours, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, annoying lens hood
|
|
|
A pretty good ultra-wide for cropped sensors, especially for the price. Build quality is fantastic, I feel like I can use this thing as a weapon.
I am not a fan of the lens hood, it's very tight and it's almost impossible to either remove/replace the lens cap or turn a polariser with it on. Not a huge issue, but annoying nonetheless.
Wasn't too impressed by its sharpness. Pretty soft wide open, especially at 10mm and around the edges. Even at f/8, sharpness is OK but nothing stellar. To be expected from an ultra-wide I guess, but if you're used to shooting with primes, even the nifty fifty blows this lens away. Maybe I got a soft copy, who knows - if so, Sigma have got to work on QC!
This is my first Sigma, and I'm underwhelmed. I've never been disappointed with a Canon lens. Maybe I expected too much from a lens designated 'EX'. I'd be curious to get my hands on a Tokina 12-24; I might miss the extra 2mm, but at a similar price, maybe the image quality'll be better.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2007
|
|
Balrog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price - value for money, build,
|
|
Cons:
|
Apart from first copy very soft left-hand side, Sigma QC.
|
|
|
First copy very soft and de-centred so had to return to Sigma. Second copy excellant and very sharp. If I had the second copy first then my overall score would have been a 10.
Far better value for money than the Canon version (as long as you get a 'GOOD' one).
Love the ultra-wide view you get from this lens.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2007
|
|
Gene Lugo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 30, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice build quality, exceptional sharpness even wide open. Very little linear distortion. Even image brightness, even into the corners.
|
|
Cons:
|
Don't even think about purchasing one of these new or used without planning on returning it to Sigma for "adjustment"
|
|
I just purchased a used year old copy. My initial impression, prior to Sigma's repair, was that it was an incredibly average lens. Moderate to severe vignetting, soft edges and unusable corners, loss of image brightness from left to right all seem to indicate an alignment problem. I took a chance, approached the previous owner with the issues. He indicated that there were still 3 yrs left on the warranty and he would gladly return it to Sigma on my behalf.
A speedy 10 days later I recieved the lens and it was if I had gotten a completely different copy! All of my concerns were addressed, the lens mount was tightened to remove any slack between the camera and lens, and they performed a cleaning.
Optically this lens is SHARP and crisp! I would rate it equal to the Nikon 12-24 in overall sharpness, and center sharpness is noticeably better. The HSM is quiet and fast, however, when shooting at 10 mm it is far easier to set it on manual focus just short of infinity - at F8 the depth of field will ensure that everything is in focus.
Uncropped images can be found here:
http://flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/1142079976/
http://flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/1163901567/
As you can see, this lens recovers amazing amounts of detail.
10 mm is an extremely wide angle, even on a cropped sensor - getting used to it requires a little bit of time. It is hard to keep the sun or bright lights from affecting meter readings, so you must take that into consideration when composing your shot, otherwise your pictures will be underexposed.
Sigma service was fast. The lens could not have been in their facility more than 8 days, and when it came back it was perfect. Resist the temptation take them up on their offer to have them calibrate the camera to the lens - it is possible that if you do this it may work well with your current body, but could be problematic on other bodies. Returning the lens to factory spec is probably all you need, and if you continue to experience issues, the body would be suspect.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2007
|
|
poyorick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
solid build, very wide
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom ring a little stiff, soft wide open especially at 10 mm, heavy
|
|
|
This lens is very wide. I use mine at 10 almost all the time. It has serious barrel distortion at 10, which is a plus in my book (but probably not for a lot of folks).
I like this lens for architecture photos and when I want to capture an entire room. It's sharp enough in the center, but gets seriously soft/distorted at the edges. This really gives some room for creative photography, but also limits the use of the lens (I can't really use it for group photos, for example).
I seriously considered the canon 10-22 for a while, but I couldn't justify spending that much money on what would basically be a one-trick lens for me.
It takes some time to get used to using it with a flash (and is nearly impossible to use with the on-board flash).
I mull selling it some times, but I know I would regret it as soon as I needed a really wide shot. I have had this lens for a year and a half now and I still don't quite feel like I've gotten $475 worth of value out of it.
This was the second lens I got (after a prime) and I probably would have been better served getting something along the lines of a tamron 17-50, but live and learn!
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2007
|
|
William Austin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
second copy was sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
QC is so very bad at Sigma, bad lens cap, unable to turn polarizing filter when hood is fitted
|
|
|
I gave this lens an overall rating of 7, it would have had a 10 had my first copy not been soft round the left side at all zoom ranges and f-stops.
I returned my first copy and the replacement seemed to be fine however i later found that when the lens hood it fitted it doesn't leave enough room to rotate a polarizing filter.
I returned this lens and bought the Canon 10-22mm
I also have the Sigma 15-30mm which I use on my 5D, I had to swap this lens out 3 times before I got a sharp copy, however the copy I now have is so sharp, it's much sharper than the Canon 16-35L and the 17-40L that I used to have.
before I got the 15-30 I tried the Sigma 12-24mm, again I tried 3 copies, the first was soft the second had it's ap blades lock after 3 shots and the 3rd was soft on the right side, I gave up and got the 15-30mm.
QC at Sigma is so bad
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
165
|
382238
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
