 |
|
|
denoise
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Location: Chile
Posts: 237
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, incredible wide, nice colors and contrast, no EF-S, almost no flare.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is not so good, some chromatic aberrations under heavy contrast situations, some vigneting wide open and image distortions.
|
|
|
This is my fav. lens for landscapes, great sharpness (starting form the center), and it's very good controlling flare (even with the sun in the scene).
I'm sorry to read users complaining about sharpness, perhaps I was lucky but mine is as good or better than my 50 f/1.8 II
I used to defish a 16mm Zenitar Fisheye for landscapes but color aberrations with this lens were too much. It was a very nice lens and sometimes I miss the rounded corners, but this one is much more useful for me, it's wider and much better optically.
I've used it on a full frame camera once and it was useful even at 13mm with no black borders. I've never seen something so wide it is like a straight 8mm fisheye.
I think 10mm it's too much for most of my shots but it's very nice to have it. A perfect walk around lens for me should be something like a 12-35mm with this image quality.
I use to rectify distortions with ptlens plugin in photoshop but deformations can be annoying when you place your subject near the corner of the frame.
AF is not so good but not a big deal, I use to manual focus using the distance scale.
|
|
 Feb 16, 2006
|
|
erCCi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 21, 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $630.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, image, and feel quality, AF speed
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, lenshood
|
|
Nice lense!
Fast and accurate AF, good build quality compared to my Canon lenses (no L lenses). A must have with 1.6x crop DSLR's. I use a 350D, only issue is with the camera man 
Bought the lens in Finland and paid 539euro for it, so around 630usd. Canon 10-22 cost around 800eur, no point in buing that.
Weight is not an issue but a point to notice before purchase.
Lenshood is build tight to the body and leaves little space for the lenscap but you probably are well off with just using one at a time...
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2006
|
|
inorman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 584
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb Resolution. As sharp as my 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. Great wide open, fast AF, HSM wish full-time Manual focusing. Very usable distance scale. Great Lens Hood. Includes case and hood with 3 year warranty. Usable filter threads. Nice and WIDE. My best built lens: makes my 85mm look flimsy. More affordable than the Canon 10-22mm
|
|
Cons:
|
No DOF scale. Slow f/4-5.6. The lens cap is hard to put on with hood attached.
|
|
This first thing you realize when you pull the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 out of it's box is that it's built like a tank. It comes in its very own zippered case and has the lens hood included. Upon attaching it to the 20D, it feels perfectly weighted. It is just right for the 20D. On a 350D or 300D, it may feel a bit heavy. This is by far my best lens overall in terms of quality of build and photo results. The 10-20 is a slow lens. Thanks to the low noise of the 20D however, this becomes much less of a problem. Frankly, at this length, speed is always a compromise. If photographers absolutely HAVE to have a 102 Degree FOV with an f/2.8 aperture, they'll need to shell out about $4000 trying to upgrade to the 5D and a 16-35L. This lens is great at f/4.0 @ 10mm. and spectacular at f/5.6 at all lengths. I usually just shoot in Av mode with aperture set wide open. Stopping down to f/8.0 at 10mm increased DOF greatly. Shots at this aperture will look sharp all around. The AF is nice and fast but I even find that shooting in MF is more desireable with such a wide lens. basically any object past about 3 feet is pretty much at infinity focus.(LOL the min. distance of my 85) The only real peeve that bothers me is the lens cap. With the hood on, it it almost impossible to remove or attach the lens cap. Sigma should have included a cap with a centered release pinch on rather than the side pinches. After some getting-used to the cap design becomes less annoying. This lens will never leave my bag. Check out the PhotoZOne lens tests at for all the technical crap about this lens. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html After owning this lens, Sigma will now always be a consideration when purchasing new gear.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2006
|
|
gaalpoel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, firm build, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Little heavy.
|
|
|
Recently buyed this lens, because I wanted to go really wide. The Canon EF-S 10-22 was no option, because of being an EF-S lens, and possible transfer to non EF-S camera. Overall this is a great lens for it's value, my copy is mainly sharp, but shows some softness at the sides when used full open. Stopped down the softness disappears.
Would recommend this one to everyone considering an UWA.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2006
|
|
Deorum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Location: Greece
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Well what else, UWA for APS-C sensors
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can think of, perhaps somewhat faster aperture would be nice...
|
|
|
Bought this lens brand new for 470 Euros, whereas the Canon 10-22 costs nearby 700euros. Price is great but the most important thing, is that there is no sacrifice in IQ. Some people have complained about Quality Control issues, but my sample is very sharp even wide open, a rarely find the need to stop it down. In addition my lens constantly overexposes about 1/3 to 2/3 stops, dont know if its the uwa that "fools" the meter, or the actuall F-stops of the lens are quite on the conservative side.
Sometimes I wish it was a bit longer, so it could serve as an all around, but it hardly fits this role. Drawbacks also include decreased border sharpness, which shows up in large prints (20cm*30cm) as a slight softness. No big deal though. I am talking about real life shots, not test shots. I have yet to take some proper photos, with the lens stopped down/tripod/MLU to share my opinions.
Bear in mind that shooting with such an UWA, brings a lot of new thing into play, that by some people are judged as lens cons, but they are not. For example, strong perspective distortions, edge positioned things look distorted, but thats something that is inherent to all uwa lenses. Using the lens at 14 mm (instead of 10) considerably reduces the uwa effects.
George,
Athens, Greece.
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2006
|
|
drwho9437
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 10, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 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 2, 2006
|
|
TimSewell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 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 29, 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 10, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 2282
|
|
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: 4492
|
|
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: 209
|
|
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 20, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 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 20, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
170
|
432093
|
Nov 5, 2017
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
84% of reviewers
|
$468.72
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.89
|
8.90
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
